OCR Text |
Show 275 west bank should nevertheless be held to be within the Reservation, since two changes in the course of the river were caused by avulsion. The United States points to two artificial changes made in the channel of the River, both of which eliminated large loops or horseshoes in the river and caused its channel to move to the east. If the United States contention is accepted, the irrigable acreage in the Reservation will be somewhat greater than California concedes. I hold that California is correct in its assertion that the present boundary of the Reservation is the west bank of the River as it now exists, but that the United States is correct in claiming that the two artificial channel changes were avulsive and that such changes did not affect the Reservation's western boundary. The call in the Executive Order of 1876 "to the west bank of the Colorado River; thence down said west bank" clearly established the west bank of the River as the boundary line. Alabama v. Georgia, 64 U. S. (23 How.) 505 (1859); Howard v. Ingersoll, 54 U. S. (13 How.) 380 (1851). That bank is defined as the fast land along the west side of the Colorado River which serves to confine the waters within the bed and tends to preserve the course of the River.37 See Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U. S. 606, 631-32 (1923) ; Howard v. Ingersoll, supra, at 416. 87The United States claims 1800 acres lying on the west side of the present channel of the River but east of the 1876 west bank {i.e. the lands in question lie roughly between the old channel and the present channel of the River). This contention seems to be based on the proposition that the 1876 west bank and the present west bank are the same, because in an unregulated state, the River would extend to the 1876 line. See U. S. Finding 4.4.102; Tr. 20068-20069. However, it is clear that the flow of the River does not now in fact extend to the 1876 line. Id. See also U. S. Exs. 560, 562. Since "bank" is denned as the fast land that serves to confine the waters of the stream to its bed, the 1876 line does not represent the present west bank of the River. Hence the 1800 acres, which lie west of the present west bank of the River, are outside the boundaries of the Reservation, and the claim of water therefor is disallowed. |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California |