OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER X 163 On April 7, 1968, Nevada filed its position. It objected to the "noncoincidental use theory"; to the lack of beneficial use figures; and to all the claims filed by each of the parties. It adopted much of the reasoning used in the analysis of the United States. H. Formation of a Fact Finding Committee On March 20, 1968, following its suggestion at a joint meeting of March 12, 1968, California proposed the formation of a Fact Finding Committee to review all PPR claims. The States and the United States accepted the proposal and Milton N. Nathanson, Assistant Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Los Angeles, the Solicitor's representative, was named chairman. It was the Solicitor's understanding, as expressed in a letter of May 21, 1968, to Justice, and that of Justice, as expressed in a letter of June 4, 1969, to the parties, that the Committee's assignment is limited to the facts concerning the PPR claims and "...is not to include the decreed rights listed in Article II(D) of the Decree..." which included the PPRs of the Indian Reservations. Hence, this area was outside the Fact Finding Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee agreed that it would gather information on diversions, return flows, consumptive use computations or estimates, acreages, dates of notices of appropriations or water use, and relevant State law. Each party would direct questions or requests for data to any other party, with copies of the requests and answers to be available to all parties. H. 1. Questions Posed by Fact Finding Committee Members On January 9, 1969, the United States representative directed a series of questions to California for the Imperial Irrigation District and Palo Verde Irrigation District; for the Bard Unit and any other California PPR claimant; and to Arizona for the North Gila Valley Irrigation District, Yuma Auxiliary Project (Unit B), the Yuma County Water Users' Association, and miscellaneous claimants. The United States questions related to the quantities of diversions from the mainstream, waste and losses, return flows, gross and net acres irrigated, quantities of water delivered to farms, the date when diversion facilities were constructed, the dates of initial diversions, and any other pertinent information. These questions were amplified by letter of February 17, 1969, for miscellaneous PPR claimants as to the basis for the claim and priority date, the diversion facilities, acreages, crops produced, and the use of water pumped from wells. By letter of January 13, 1969, the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission asked counsel for the Arizona irrigation districts to respond. By letter of January 13, 1969, Nevada's counsel requested that, in addition to the data the Fact Finding Committee indicated it would gather, the parties should provide information on water use after June 25, 1929, so that the validity of objections based on abandonment could be evaluated. By letter dated February 14, 1969 (sic), Arizona asked that, in addition to the information requested by the United States, Imperial Irrigation District provide, among other things, data for 1923-1929 on losses of water in transportation attributable to the Mexican and United States deliveries and the flows into the Salton Sea. By letter of January 14, 1969, Arizona also requested the information called for by the United States and, in addition, the acreage irrigated by direct diversion or pumping from the river and by pumping from wells, and the amounts of water used for municipal and industrial purposes. By letter of January 15, 1969, California directed a series of questions to the United States regarding the Federal establishments, and to Arizona regarding the irrigation districts' PPR claims, and a separate series of questions for miscellaneous PPR claimants. The questions involved both the water use; i.e., diversions, measured and unmeasured return flows, acreages and ownership, cropping patterns, consumptive use figures, notices of appropriations, the basis of priority dates, and data pertaining to pumping from wells. On January 20, 1969, the United States declined to respond to California's inquiry of January 15, 1969, on Federal establishments for the reason that the information requested was outside the scope of the Committee's functions as prescribed in both Interior's and Justice's aforenoted limitation and was already covered by the Decree. On January 30, 1969, California responded in part as to Bard Irrigation District. |