OCR Text |
Show -11- ''necessary for irrigating land actually cultivated and in use", and the reservation is in favor of "the Indians now (then) using the same." And as to the defendants' plea of abandonment: It will not be assumed that Congress intended to require the Indian occupants to divert and apply the water with their own hands; they could employ others to do the irrigating or they could lease or sell outright both the land and the water right. The clause in Article VIII, "so long as said Indians remain where they now live", has reference only to the option of the Indians to retain their possessory claims or to relinquish them and select lands elsewhere. Having once elected to retain their claims, they became invested with all the rights incident to ownership, and, like any other land owners, could themselves occupy and use or could lease or sell both the land and the water right appurtenant thereto. Coming now to the consideration of the occupancy and use of the lands here under consideration, and the diversion and use of the water in controversy. Upon referring to a map put in evidence by the defendants, it will be noted that each allotment runs one-half mile north and south and one-fourth of a mile east and west, and that the seven allotments, lying side by side, constitute a compact rectangular tract one-half mile wide north and south and one and three-fourths miles long east and west, the several allotments being numbered from west to east: 11 (Tindore), 12 (Magozah), 13 (Robert Tin-dore), 16 (Pattish), 17 (Tsacorobe), 14 (Hevedore Tindore), and 15 (Fee Emb). By a sinuous course the Portneuf River flows from east to west through the entire tract, excepting at two points where in its windings it crosses the north line for a short distance, in numbers |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |