OCR Text |
Show 156 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS District and Palo Verde Irrigation District and that any district water right was available for all the lands within each district. This raised the question of the effect on the PPR claims of the enlargement of the District's boundaries which have occurred since 1929 (see memorandum to the Solicitor from the Associate Solicitor, Water and Power, dated July 30, 1965, and a memorandum dated October 13, 1965, to the Files, respectively). F.4.1. States Request for Extension of Time for Compliance with Decree In its meeting with the United States on October 7, 1965, California advanced several reasons for an extension of time within which to comply with the 2-year requirement in Article VI of the Decree. First, it argued that there was a need to obtain Reclamation's reports under Article V(B) of the Decree, which requires the Secretary to provide complete, detailed and accurate records of diversions of water from the mainstream, return flow, and consumptive uses of such water stated separately as to each diverter, each point of diversion, and each of the States. Secondly, in contrast to the major diverters such as Imperial Irrigation District, it was difficult to identify miscellaneous diverters and to prove their pre-June 1929 diversions. And, third, legislation was then being considered in Congress in connection with the authorization of the Central Arizona Project which, if enacted, would impact Article VI of the Decree by providing a priority to present perfected rights and existing water contractors over the Central Arizona Project. Neither California nor the United States wanted to upset an amicable settlement of that issue. California's position on an extension of time was also presented in a letter of October 26, 1965, to the Solicitor General. By letter of January 6, 1965, to Justice, Interior's Solicitor discussed the request for an extension of time and proposed, if acceded to, that it be conditioned upon a scheduled timetable for the completion of PPR determinations. No such timetable emerged, although a 1-year extension for compliance with Article VI was ordered by the Supreme Court on February 28, 1966. F.5. United States List of PPR Claims On January 14, 1966, Interior's Solicitor provided Justice with a list of PPRs of the Indian Reservations which itemized the number of acres in the Reservations within each State, the diversion quantities in acre-feet, appropriate priority dates, and a listing of PPR claims for the National Park Service. This list was the basis for the list provided to the Solicitor by the Regional Solicitor on December 16, 1966, and the list thereafter filed by Justice with the Supreme Court on March 9, 1967. F.5.1. California's List of PPR Claims A meeting with California representatives was held on April 4, 1966, at which California indicated PPR claims of 2.7 to 2.8 maf for the irrigation of 425,000 acres in Imperial Irrigation District; 208,100 acre-feet for the irrigation of 32,000 to 36,000 acres in Palo Verde Irrigation District; and 18,000 to 19,000 acre-feet for the Bard Unit for the irrigation of 5,928 acres. Claims for Needles and for riparian lands were also discussed. California urged adoption of the diversion less return figures in United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1049. F.6 Format of PPR Statement At a meeting of all the parties on July 11, 1966, a draft of a statement of the priorities for the major water user PPR claimants prepared by the Department of Justice was distributed. The PPRs were stated in a form similar to that used in Article II(D) of the Decree for the Indian Reservations; i.e., the lesser of either a specific quantity of water diverted from the mainstream or the number of acre-feet (unspecified) of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for the irrigation of a stated number of acres and for related uses as of a given priority date. |