WSP05470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. "'.~ ,.-. 1. VoJ.) consolidated response to the December 1978 motion of the United States. The state parties responded that the issue of the number of irrigable acres within the 1964 boundaries of the reservations was fully litigated before the previous Special Master and finally determined by the Supreme Court in 1964, and is not subject to reliligation. The state parties also contended that determinations recognizing enlarged reservation boundaries are not final and are subject to judicial review. They contended that the Court, through the Spt'Cial Mast!!'r, should consider the boundary land claims through a two-..tep process: t 1 ) determination of the underlying boundary disputes to Set' if any reSE'rvation has larger boundaries than were rf'Cognized in 1%4; and (2) if such is the ca..e, establi..hment of water rights based on practicably irrigable acreaRe within those enlarged boundaries. The Colorado River Indian Tribe.. and the Cocopah Indian Tribe adopted and approved the Dt><:ember 1978 motion of the United States, except that the Colorado River Indian Tribes reserved the right to ..eek additional water rights for an additional 37,449 acres of omitted lands. In March 1979, Special Master Elbert P. Tuttle callt'd an informal conference in Phoenix, Arizona. to identify issuE'S in the casE' and in April 1979 held a formal hearing in San Francisco on the following points: (1) whether the boundariE'S of the respective Indian reserv.llions have ~n "finally determined" within the meaning of Article II (D I (5) of the 1964 Decree, (2) whethE'r the Eleventh Amendment to the U.s. Constitution bars IntNvention in this suit by the Indian tribes without the consent of the state parties, and (J) whether there is any procedure ior the Indian tribes to participate as if they were parties, pending a ruling on their motions to intel"\-ene. In August 1979. Judge Tuttle issued a "Memorandum and Report on " , rlJll,/ft/( r'Otl (nn/inues on Iht' inr.}/q, to Ih,' CI'nr,,]1 An/flll,l Pmj,'rr whidl \\'11/ hq~in 10 reH'in' I/." .l/lolmf'lll inlhp ml(l-I'1RO~ Preliminary Issu('5" and filt'd It WIth the Court. The report granted the Indian Iribes unconditional leave to intervene in the suit and concluded thaI the Eleventh Amendment did not bar intervention. The report also concluded that, lor the purpoSe<; of determination of reservation water rights in this litigation, boundary determination.. made bv the district courts and by the- Secretary of the- Interior are- final. For the "omitted lands", no decision was made wht>ther or on ....:hat Qdsis the 1964 and 1979 decrees may be modified 10 establish additional present pe-rfeClf'd rights ior Indian reservations. The ruling was that this proceeding will include proof of the irrigabilitv ot both boundary and omitted lands, and a decision on additional .....ater for the omitted lands will be deferred until " after the tribes, the defendants, and the United States have completed the submission of evide-nce. The state- pilrties took exception to the Special Milster's memorandum re-port and in November 1979 filed a motion with the Court urging rejection of his rulings on the following ite-ms: (1) the hearing of evidence on "omitted lands" claims without first deciding whether such claims can e-ven be a..serted, (2) the t'Stablishment of disputed boundaries, (J) the principle of '>O\'ereign immunity, and (41 the right of intervention b". the Indian tribes. The stale pilrties stated that their rights would be irrevocably harmt"d if proceedings continued before the Special \.1aster withoul the above issues being resolved by the Court itself. On Januarv 7, 1980, the Court denied the state parties' motion, in