Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />0012 <br /> <br />-13- <br /> <br />Perhaps as an attempt to accommodate past, present and <br />future needs and, at the same time, make possible the deter- <br />mination of a fixed quantity, in 1963 the United States Supreme <br />Court in Arizona v. California 15/held that the standard for <br /> <br />quantifying Indian reserved water rights for five lower Colo- <br /> <br />rado River Indian reservations was the amount of water neces- <br /> <br />sary to irrigate the "practicably irrigable acreage" (PIA) on the <br />reservations. The Court provided few guidelines regarding <br /> <br />technological standards for irrigation, nor was much guidance <br />given on questions of economic practicability (although the <br />most recent decision in the case, with accompanying Special. <br />16/ <br />Masters Report, is more helpful in this regard). -- But, <br />the Court did decide upon a formula which facilitates deter- <br /> <br />mination of a fixed quantity for Indian reserved water rights. <br /> <br />Nowhere in the opinion, however, did the court declare the <br />Arizona standard as that by which a quantification would (or <br />should) be reached for all Indian reservations. Nevertheless, <br />Arizona is the only Supreme Court authority on the question <br />of quantification. <br /> <br />Many observers believe that the Arizona practicably irri- <br />gable acreage (PIA) standard is not the "final word" on quanti- <br />fication of Indian water rights, Some have' argued that a PIA <br />diversionary water right of 900,000 acre feet per year to five <br />Indian tribes with the total population of approximately <br />2,000 members is far too generous, This is especially true, <br />they insist, when viewed in the light of the current Colorado <br />