State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial 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 : the United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners : State of Utah and State of New Mexico, impleaded defendants : report / Simon H. Rifkind, special master

table-of-contents-page vii

vii PAGE 2. Cocopah Indian Reservation......... 267 Findings of Fact................... 267 Conclusion of Law................. 268 3. Yuma Indian Reservation........... 268 Findings of Fact................... 268 Conclusion of Law................. 269 4. Colorado River Indian Reservation ... 269 Findings of Fact................... 269 Conclusions of Law................ 273 Boundary Dispute-Opinion......... 274 5. Fort Mohave Indian Reservation..... 279 Findings of Fact .................. 279 Conclusions of Law................ 282 Boundary Dispute-Opinion ........ 283 6. Coachella Indian Reservations........ 288 Findings of Fact.................. 288 Conclusion of Law................. 288 Opinion .......................... 289 B. National Forests, Recreation Areas, Parks, Memorials, Monuments and Lands Administered By the Bureau of Land Management.................. 291 Findings of Fact.................. 294 Conclusion of Law................. 295 C. United States Obligations Under the Mexican Water Treaty and Treaties for the Protection of Wildlife....... 295