OCR Text |
Show 136 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS the mainstream below Lake Mead. The Master rejected the argument advanced by the United States and California that diversions from the mainstream between Lake Mead and Lee Ferry are chargeable under the apportionment. The provisions of these two Articles are contrary to the command of Section 5 that "contracts respecting water for irrigation and domestic uses shall be for permanent service..., they violate Section 18, which directs that State law shall govern intrastate water rights and priorities, and they result in an allocation of mainstream water totally out of harmony with the limitation on California contained in Section 4(a)." (See Special Master's Report, page 237.) (But see Supreme Court Opinion, Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 591, where the Court differed with the Master and held that the Secretary had the authority to charge Arizona and Nevada for diversions from the mainstream between Lee Ferry and Lake Mead.) The Special Master noted that a contract for a stated term of years would not be for "permanent service" and that the requirement thereof seems to have been intended to instruct the Secretary to contract for water deliveries in such a way as to assure users, as far as is physically possible, of a stable supply of water (Special Master's Report, pages 238 and 239). C.14 United States Uses Charges to States The Special Master concluded: "All consumption of mainstream water within a State is to be charged to that State, regardless of who the user may be. Thus, consumption of mainstream water on United States Indian Reservations, National Parks, Forests, Monuments, and Recreation Areas, lands under the control of the Bureau of Land Management, reclamation projects, wildlife refuges, and other United States projects within the Lower Basin, all of which will be treated subsequently, is chargeable to the State within which the use is made." (Special Master's Report, page 247.) C.15 United States Claims to Mainstream Water C.15.1 Indian Reservations - Winter's Rights The Special Master accepted the claim of the United States that, in addition to control of the mainstream by reason of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and its ownership and management of the various dams and works which regulate mainstream water, it has reserved water for needs of the Indian Reservations located on the Colorado River within the Lower Basin, independently of the State law of appropriation, in quantities sufficient to irrigate all the irrigable acreage in each of the Reservations and to satisfy related uses. Arizona asserted that the quantity of water reserved for an Indian Reservation is the amount necessary to satisfy the requirements of Indians living on the Reservation at any particular time. California denied that the United States intended to reserve water for all irrigable lands on an Indian Reservation (Special Master's Report, page 255). The Special Master agreed with Arizona that there is no need to adjudicate the rights or priorities of Indian Reservations diverting water from the Lower Basin tributaries, except for the Gila River. As to the mainstream Indian Reservations, the Special Master concluded that this disagreement presented a justifiable controversy which required adjudication in order that the Secretary know how much water he may release for consumption on each Indian Reservation. The Special Master sustained the claim of the United States that it has the power to create a water right appurtenant to the lands of an Indian Reservation without complying with State law. He cited Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) as authority for the proposition that when the United States creates an Indian Reservation it may reserve water for the future needs of that Reservation and that appropriative water rights of others established subsequent to the Reservation must give way when it becomes necessary for the Indian Reservation to utilize additional water for its expanding needs (Special Master's Report, page 258). This power to reserve water may be found in a treaty as well as by statute or executive order and need not be done expressly but may be implied from the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Reservation. Furthermore, water so reserved was not limited to the needs of the population then resident upon the |