My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05306
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05306
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:57:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Getches and Meyers
Title
The River of Controversy - Persistent Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ <br /> <br />ties may be limited by the economics.52 But tribes, restrained only by the <br /> <br />quantity of water allocated to them, not by the agricultural purposes used to <br /> <br />53 <br />calculate that quantity, have begun to develop more productive uses. These <br /> <br />uses could displace existing non-Indian water uses in California and Arizona. <br /> <br />Tribes other than the five that were represented in Arizona v. California <br /> <br />may have far greater reserved rights ro Colorado River Basin waters. Quantifi- <br /> <br />cation of reserved rights of the huge Navajo Reservation and others such as <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />the Ute, Gila River, and Papago could significantly affect reliability rights <br /> <br />of others in the river.54 Congress has failed to enact legislation to deter- <br /> <br />mine Indian reserved rights55 but litigation56 and negotiations57 are being <br /> <br />pursued in a number of places outside the basin. If there is quantification <br /> <br />of Indian rights in the basin it will probably be on a case-by-case basis <br /> <br />rather than through some sweeping exercise of congressional authority. Cir- <br /> <br />cumsta~ces differ radically from reservation to reservation and so do the <br /> <br />necessity and appropriateness of quantifying tribal rights. A tribe with <br /> <br />little need for water or no practicable means for using it poses little threat <br /> <br />to ocher users. But on reservations where the tribe or an industry stands <br /> <br />ready to put huge quantities of water to use, established non-Indian users may <br /> <br />be faced with great dislocations. <br /> <br />One way of resolving the haunting uncertainties of Indian reserved rights <br /> <br />is through agreements between tribes and other users. Several examples exist <br /> <br />in the basin states. The Utes of the Unitah and Ouray Reservation in Utah <br /> <br />signed a deferral agreement to enable the Central Utah Project to be con- <br /> <br />58 <br />structed. In 1968 the Navajos were persuaded to agree not to develop any <br /> <br />more than 5U,OOO acre-feet of water for fifty years in the Upper Basin where <br /> <br />more than half of the huge reservation is located. The agreement was made to <br /> <br />facilitate construction of a coal burning power plant on the reservation which <br /> <br />- 17 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.