OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER XI ENLARGEMENT OF BOUNDARIES OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS ALONG LOWER COLORADO RIVER AND ALLEGED "OMISSION" OF IRRIGABLE ACREAGE A. Background In Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, the Special Master resolved the boundary disputes involving the Colorado River and Fort Mohave Indian Reservations (see Articles II(C)(2)(d) and (e) of Proposed Decree, pages 273-287 and 351-352, Special Master's Report, December 5, 1960). The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Master's decision to determine these disputed boundaries and left the resolution of the boundaries to a later date, 373 U.S. 546, 601. Subsequently, as described herein, the Department of the Interior acted to resolve the boundary questions for these two Reservations. In addition, it has "enlarged" the boundaries of the Chemehuevi and Cocopah Indian Reservations and most recently, on December 10, 1978, a Secretarial Order returned lands to the Yuma Indian Reservation. This was based on a Solicitor's Opinion of December 20, 1978, which reversed the opinions of former Solicitors Austin, Weinberg, and Margold, each of which had expressed conclusions contrary to the December 20, 1978, Opinion. B. Effect of Boundary Changes on Water Use and Rights In Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, the Supreme Court agreed with the Special Master's findings that "enough water was reserved to irrigate all the practicably irrigable acreage on the Reservations" (373 U.S. 546, 601). The Court found that the "various acreages of irrigable land which the Master found to be on the different Reservations (we find it to be) reasonable" (373 U.S. 546, 601). The Departmental actions which "enlarged" the boundaries of the four Reservations raise questions as to the number of "practicably irrigable acres" in the "enlarged" areas, the quantity of water required therefor, and the priority dates to be accorded to those areas. According to the Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, letter of July 16, 1976, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, these irrigable acreages are: Cocopah Indian Reservation 1,142 Chemehuevi Indian Reservation 166 Colorado River Indian Reservation 3,964 Fort Mohave Indian Reservation 228 These questions are awaiting resolution as a result of the Supreme Court Opinion of January 9, 1979, dealing with the determination of "present perfected rights" pursuant to Article VI of the Decree of March 9, 1964, in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340. At this writing it appears that the answers to the above question will be determined by litigation before the newly appointed Special Master as to the validity of the Departmental actions (see Chapter I, K, and Chapter X herein). C. Issues of "Omitted" Irrigable Lands in Litigation in Arizona v. California The possible increase in present perfected rights for the five Reservations is a matter separate and apart from the assertion of the five Tribes that, during the course of the litigation in Arizona v. California, the Government omitted and did not advance claims for all the irrigable acreages within the Reservations as they were constituted prior to their "enlargement." 183 |