OCR Text |
Show __2__ alternatives on which Arizona reserves the right to take its final position in the light of the position of the United States, are following: (a) If the United States construes the case of Winters v. United States, (207 U.S. 564), and United States v. Walker River Irrigation District, (104 Fed. 2d, 334), (C. A. 9) so as not to prejudice the total water resources available to those portions of the State of Arizona bordering the Colorado River, then Arizona may be able to hold the position that the quantities claimed are outside the contract of February 24, 1944. (b) The foregoing position depends, however, on the interpretation to be given the Act of 1866, (14 Stat. 253) and also the interpretation to be given to the case, Krall v. U.S. (57 Fed. 241), (C. A. 9). Of specific concern in this connection will be the factual proof to be made by the United States concerning the nature of the occupants of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, their date of settlement, and points of origin, and perhaps their ethnic relationship to such Indians as may have been among those for whom the reservation was originally created. However, Arizona cannot take the position that Indian rights should be made prior to its contract rights merely because Indians having no relation whatsoever to a particular reservation may belatedly be moved upon it; but in the absence of consideration of an inspection of the proof tendered by the United States in respect to this reservation, the final position of Arizona will have to be taken in the light of the evidence. |
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. |