| OCR Text |
Show 180 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS The parties would leave the question of intervention by the two Tribes up to the United States and, if supported by them, would not be opposed by the parties, but only on condition that (1) the proposed supplemental decree be entered forthwith, or (2) if intervention is granted it should be for the limited purpose of asserting additional Indian claims under Articles II(D)(5) and IX of the 1964 Decree and not to attack other previously quantified claims, or other parts of the Decree, and (3) that the Tribes should no longer be represented by the United States. On June 5, 1978, Arizona's response was filed. It adopted the response of California, Nevada, the Coachella Valley County Water District, and Imperial Irrigation District, except that Arizona would not consent to intervention, which must be permissive and not as a matter of right, and also urged that the United States representation of the Tribes has been "adequate and zealous." Once land title disputes have been finalized in lower court decisions, asserted Arizona, the Supreme Court can make appropriate orders as to water rights. On June 1, 1978, a Response to the Motion of the two Tribes for Leave to Intervene and Petition of Intervention was filed on behalf of The Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the City of Los Angeles, and the County of San Diego; i.e., the "Urban Agencies." They also adopted the response of California, Nevada, Coachella Valley County Water District and Imperial Irrigation District, and, in addition, challenged the Indian claims of additional water rights based on either "omitted" acreage or boundary changes. The Urban Agencies alleged that if the Indian claims for increased acreage in California are upheld it would result in the consumptive use of an additional 237,860 acre-feet over the quantities in the 1964 Decree which would reduce MWD's allocation of Colorado River water by 20 percent. They opposed redetermination of the ("omitted") irrigable acreage within the undisputed Reservation boundaries as barred by res judicata, but believed it timely that the Court determine the Reservation boundary issues and requested the appointment of a Special Master for that purpose. The Urban Agencies asserted that they were not parties to the court proceedings involving the Cocopah Reservation enlargement nor is the Secretarial Order of January 17, 1969, which increased the area within the Colorado River Indian Reservation, binding for the purpose of establishing a claim for a Federally reserved right which directly impinges on MWD's water rights. The Urban Agencies repeated the condition expressed in the response of California, Nevada, Coachella Valley County Water District and Imperial Irrigation District, that they did not oppose permissive intervention if entry of the supplemental decree is not delayed pending the outcome of proceedings initiated under Articles II(D)(5) and/or IX of the Decree, and, if independent counsel is allowed for the Tribes intervention, that the United States not be allowed to concurrently represent the Tribes as trustee. 5. Joint Motion to Enter Agreed Upon Decree On May 30, 1978, a Joint Motion for the Entry of a Supplemental Decree, dated May 26, 1978, was filed on behalf of the United States, the States, and the California Defendants. The Joint Motion noted that all these parties were in agreement on the proposed Decree which includes a provision giving priority to the Indians PPRs. In a Memorandum for the United States dated May 1978, the United States reviewed the prior proceedings and continued to oppose the motion of the three Tribes to intervene in order to object to the entry of the proposed supplemental decree but stated that non-Article VI claims are in a different position. The United States was not prepared to proceed with claims for areas recognized as part of the Indian Reservations and that Interior had not determined whether it would recommend the assertion of claims for the "omitted" lands. However, if the Court concludes that the foregoing claims are sufficiently matured and definite to be entertained, the United States would not oppose intervention to present these claims after the current Article VI proceedings have been concluded by the entry of the proposed supplemental decree. T. Supreme Court Opinion and Decree of January 9, 1979 On October 10, 1978, the Court heard oral arguments of the parties. On January 9, 1979, in a Per Curiam Opinion, the Court ordered that the Joint Motion of the United States, Arizona, the California De- |
