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

page 277

277 Evidence of such an understanding by officers and departments of the United States may properly be considered in determining the intent of the Executive Order of 1876. See Stewart v. United States, 316 U. S. 354 (1942); cf. United States v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169 (1887). In Stewart v. United States, Mr. Justice Roberts, in interpreting the extent of a Mexican grant under which the United States claimed title, considered various maps and charts prepared by United States officers and departments subsequent to the grant as probative of the amount of land to which the United States obtained title. Finally, the understanding of the various officers and departments of the United States that the 1876 Executive Order did not establish a fixed boundary at the 1876 meander line was apparently shared by the defendant Palo Verde Irrigation District which has, for various periods of time beginning in 1927, assessed lands within the disputed area for purposes of taxation.41 It is also worthy of note that no evidence was introduced to demonstrate that the United States has ever asserted title to the area in controversy prior to this litigation. It having been concluded that the west bank of the River, as presently located, is the boundary of the Reservation, the question arises of avulsive changes in the course of the River since 1876. An avulsive change is a sudden, States and conveyed by the Secretary lay west of the 1876 meander line and east of the course of the River. Tr. 20269-20274; Calif. Exs. 3535-3537. It is at this point that the River flows west of the 1876 meander line. Calif. Ex. 3537. In 1934 the California Department of Public Works obtained a right of way for construction of what later became United States Highway 95. Although the State was required to pay for Indian land traversed by the project, California was not required to pay for land lying in the disputed area. The United States officials involved in the various stages of the transaction were the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Superintendent of the Colorado River Indian Agency. Tr. 20305-20309; Calif. Exs. 3543-3543G. 41Tr. 20435-20439 (Shipley) ; Calif, Ex. 3547.