| OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER X 153 Department of the Interior, in recognition of the fact that the Decree requires the Secretary to prepare a list of the Federal PPR claims in each State and clearly implies that each party has the duty of appraising and making a judgment as to the PPRs and the priority dates claimed by the other parties, asked the Regional Solicitor's office at Los Angeles, California, to produce a program for getting the information required by the Decree. A tentative program was agreed to in February 1965 by representatives of the Solicitor's office, Reclamation, and the Department of Justice. This included the preparation of a listing of PPR claims in each State for Federal establishments such as the Indian Reservations, and those of Federal irrigation projects to assure that their rights would not be adversely affected by State actions, as well as the development of adequate information to enable the United States to comment on PPR claims advanced by the States. F. 1 Meetings with States On June 21, 1964, Reclamation's Regional Director, Boulder City, Nevada, asked the Lower Basin States as to the status of present perfected right claims within each State and proposed that each State appoint a representative for the purpose of discussing the matter with the United States. In July 1964, the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, which assumed the lead role for determining Arizona's PPRs, sent a "notice to all persons claiming present perfected rights..." to present detailed information substantiating their claims to the Commission. Copies of the replies thereto were transmitted to Reclamation; e.g., see Commissioner's letter of November 13, 1965. Similarly, on December 8, 1964, California, represented by the California Attorney General's Office, sent letters to those California miscellaneous users of Colorado River water which it was able to identify, and requested answers to detailed questions in an effort to identify PPR claimants. California's first submittal of these claims was its letter to Reclamation of February 3, 1967. The aforementioned program initiated by Interior and Justice in February 1965 was aimed at ascertaining, if possible, the precise acres irrigated prior to June 25, 1929, and the number of acre-feet of water used on those acres, not only for the Federal reclamation projects administered by Reclamation but also for projects such as Imperial Irrigation District and Palo Verde Irrigation District in California and the North Gila Valley of the Yuma-Mesa Division of the Gila Project in Arizona (see memorandum of March 9, 1965, from Associate Solicitor, Water and Power, to the Solicitor). The above effort was prompted by that portion of Article I(G) of the Decree which refers to a water right which "...has been exercised by the actual diversion of a specific quantify of water that has been applied to a defined area of land..." (underscoring added). The problem was whether that right related to a precise single landholding or to an entire district. Likewise, whether the "...specific quantity of water that had been applied..." could be an unspecified quantity reasonably necessary to irrigate the specific land or a fixed quantity for an entire district. F.2 United States Preparation of Data In a document dated July 1, 1965, and entitled "Data and Tentative Conclusions Concerning Present Perfected Rights of Federal Reclamation Projects in Arizona and California" (1965 Data), the first analysis was made by Reclamation and the Regional Solicitor's Office, Los Angeles, of the PPRs for the Yuma Auxiliary Project (Unit B) and the Valley Division of the Yuma Project, both in Arizona, and the Reservation Division of the Yuma Project in California. These documents were transmitted to the States by Reclamation on July 1, 1965, with emphasis on the need to exchange all available information. The document illustrates the problem in determining PPRs. The above-named Federal reclamation projects were administered by Reclamation's Yuma Projects Office. However, in spite of the mass of records still available, there were no records existing in 1965 which would show the precise acres irrigated pre-June 1929, or the quantities of acre-feet of water applied to each parcel of land or to each farm unit. Another major problem was that of recreating events which had occurred over 30 years ago, and this was complicated by the fact that in nearly every instance of major PPR claims the current diversion points had been changed from the points used before June 25, 1929, so that the differences in transmission and conveyance losses became |
