Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--' <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Federal Reservation of Rights to the Use DE Water," Brigham Young Uni- <br /> <br />versity Law Review, p. 039 (1975). <br /> <br />,~ <br /> <br />--, <br /> <br />45. The tribes whose claims were decided in Arizona v. California were the <br /> <br />Chemehuevi Tribe, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado River Tribe, Fort Mojave <br /> <br />Tribe, and Quechan Tribe. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />46. 373 U.S. at 000-01. The Court approved the report of the Special Master <br />who had found: "The reservations of water were made for the purpose of <br /> <br />enabling the Indians to develop a viable agricultural economy.'.... Rif- <br /> <br />kind, 2E.:.. tit., p. 265. <br /> <br />--' <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />47, A Special Master appointed by the Court held lengthly hearings and <br /> <br />issued a 315 page report. Elbert P. Tuttle, Report of the Special <br />Master, Arizona v. California (February 22, 1982). <br /> <br />48. <br /> <br />Arizona v. California, <br /> <br />u.s. <br /> <br />, _' 103 S. Ct. 1382, 1392 <br /> <br />(i 983). <br /> <br />49. See Tuttle, 2E.:..~' pp. 106-11 for a summary of the claims to <br /> <br />additional irrigable acreage. <br /> <br />50. One tribe, Fort Mojave, has diverted an average of about 77% of its <br /> <br />entitlement. Another, Chemehuevi, has diverted none. Arizona v. <br /> <br />California, <br /> <br />U.S. <br /> <br />n.S 103 S. Ct. 1382, 1409 n.8 (983). <br /> <br />51. Tremendous capital expenditures would be required to make full use of <br /> <br />- 40 - <br />