WSP06879 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OH3-98 03: 07PM FROM MSAJ WA O~~63~ TO 17022938042 P003!006 I I I I I I r I 1 I I I I I I I I I r Bureau of Reclamation April 3, 1998 Page 2 The subject of Quechan water rlghlS has bccn addlCl!5Cd by the Supreme Court on two occasions. The first occasion was the 1964 United States Supreme Court decree in Ariz'o1l4 p, C.oJjfo,.,m 1.2 In that dccrcc. the Court confirmed that the Oucchan Tribe had Winten doctrine water rights associated with the Fort Yuma Reservation. The decree determined tbat the Tn1lc is entitled to water to irrigate 7,743 acres, with an annual divemon of Colorado River water of SI,61li acre-feet. The priority date of this water right is JanllaI}' 9, 1884. Tn 1978, hailed on a legal opinion of Interior Solicitor Lco Krulitz. United States Secretary of Interior CcciI Andrus issued an order and final determination of the boundaries of the Fort Y urna Indian Reservation, This determination, if sustained, would substantially increase Qucchan water entiuement In hi. final report IUhmitted to the Court, Spec:iaI Master Tuttle acx:cptcd the 1978 Solicitor Kru1itz opinion alld Secretary Andrus' order as a final determination of the boundaries of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, He ft(;Civcd evidence regarding the irrigability of these lands. After receiving evidence from all the parties, Special Master Tuttle recommended that the 1964 Decree be amended to provide that the Fort Yuma Indian Re&eMltion was entitled to water. in annual quantities not to c:xccc:d (i) 130.135 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water nccellOllry to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 19,515 acres and for the sati,*"~roon of related U8CS, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of January 9, 1884.' On appeal. the Supreme Court did not accept his finding regardin~ the final determination of the boundaries of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation,' The Supreme Court held that of the 11,m additional acres rcwgnizcd by Special MlISter Tuttle, 216 acres were llO-Clll1ed "omitted" lands that were not properly before the Court and therefore were not entitled to an appropriation of water, That decillion is final. and those 216 acres arc no longer at issue. The Court, however, deferred resolution of the lIO-caltcd "boundarY' lands to the tower courts, or for future litigation before the Supreme Court. In Metropolilan Warer DisrriCl v. Un/red Srares) the California water agencies ehaIIengcd the Secretarial 2 AriwIlD P. California 1, 376 U.S. 344 (1964). , Report of Special Master Tuttle, Arizon4 P, Cali/0tni4. No, 8 Original at 281 (February 22, 1982). · Arirona v. California 11, 460 U.S. 60S (1983).