| OCR Text |
Show 18 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS In a later Memorandum in Opposition filed May 1978, the United States continued to oppose the Motion of the Three Tribes to intervene in order to object to the entry of the proposed decree under Article VI but stated that new non-Article VI matters, such as additional Indian PPR claims for lands in boundary adjustments and omitted lands, would not be opposed after the current Article VI proceedings were concluded by the entry of the proposed supplemental decree. ¦ K.6 States and Other Defendants Positions on Indian Interventions On January 25, 1978, the three States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the California Defendants, filed a response to the Motion of the Three Tribes for Leave to Intervene. They opposed the intervention, which they stated should be denied, because it would constitute a suit against the States without their necessary consent and because the Tribes do not qualify to intervene as a matter of right or for permissive intervention. They argued that the Tribes are adequately represented by the United States and that the Tribes should proceed under Article II(D) (5) and/or IX for recalculation of their irrigable acreage. However, they argued that res judicata bars any added claims for "omitted" acreages within the 1964 boundaries. They also questioned whether Secretarial orders finally determine Indian Reservation boundaries as the basis for asserting water rights which impinge on those of the State parties. In a Response dated May 22, 1978, to the Petition of the Three Tribes for Intervention dated April 7, 1978, the three States and the California Defendants repeated their views of January 25, 1978. They called attention to the fact that the Two Tribes had contrary views to those of the Three Tribes and to the fact that the Colorado River Indian Tribes, which have almost three-quarters of the total water rights quantified for the Indian Tribes in the Court's decree, are apparently satisfied they are not prejudiced by the proceedings under Article VI. In a response dated June 1, 1978, to the April 10, 1978, Motion of the Two Tribes to Intervene, California, Nevada, the Coachella Valley County Water District and the Imperial Irrigation District stated they still oppose the intervention motion of the Three Tribes. They again raised the argument of the States' immunity to suit and urged forthwith entry of the proposed supplemental decree. These parties, however, were willing to accede to the position of the United States on intervention: if the United States supports (or does not oppose) intervention, they will not, but only subject to condition: • Intervention must be permissive and not as a matter of right; • Intervention must be for limited purposes; i.e., to assert additional claims under Articles II(D)(5) and/or IX only and not to attack other, previously quantified claims, or other parts of the Decree; and • To avoid multiple legal representation and undue delay, the United States should no longer represent the Tribes who would have private counsel. Arizona's Response, dated June 5, 1978, to the Motion of the Two Tribes, adopted California's and Nevada's Response above, except that, on the grounds of State immunity to suit, it would not consent to intervention even though the United States will consent. It also concurred with the view that intervention must be permissive and not as a matter of right. Therefore, Arizona argued, since the United States representation of the Tribes has been adequate and zealous, private counsel is not necessary. Arizona further maintained that in large part the claims sought to be asserted by the Tribes depend for their validity upon the determination of land title disputes which should first be finalized in lower Court decisions before the United States makes claims for water rights therefor. And, finally, if intervention is allowed it should be subject to the conditions asserted by California and Nevada, above. On June 1, 1978, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego (collectively termed "the Urban Agencies"), filed their Response. The Urban Agencies adopted the Response of California and Nevada, as had Arizona, and, in addition, challenged the Indian claims of increased water rights based on (1) "omitted" lands within the undisputed boundaries, and (2) additional irrigable acreage resulting from alleged boundary changes. They charged that all the increased claims in California, if allowed, would result in an Indian consumptive use entitlement exceeding the Decree rights by 237,860 acre-feet. Because of MWD's priority position in the California Seven-Party Agreement, this would potentially reduce MWD's allocation of Colorado River water by approximately 20 percent. |
