| OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER X 157 The States objected to the PPRs being stated in terms of a dual limitation and urged the adoption of a single diversion figure. Their reasons were that the rights of the Indian Reservations were not based on actual water use but on the intention that water was reserved for later use, whereas non-Indian PPR claims required the actual use of water, that the dual limitation created uncertainty as to the extent of the right, and that it was difficult to administer. This position paralleled that taken at the prior meeting of April 4, 1966. They also objected to the inclusion of a reference to the precise number of irrigated acres. A significant determination was made at this meeting by the Department of Justice. Because of the lack of records in Imperial Irrigation District and Palo Verde irrigation District, the two major California PPR claimants, which would identify each irrigated acre pre-June 25, 1929, Justice acquiesced in the States view that the "defined area of land" to which water had to have been applied pre-June 25, 1929, could be viewed as the lands within the exterior boundaries of the District (see memorandum from Reclamation's Regional Supervisor of Irrigation to the Regional Director dated July 18, 1966). This position was later attacked by the Indians as part of their opposition to a stipulated settlement. The States further suggested they would not object if the PPRs of the Indian Reservation were stated in terms of a single diversion figure and if the dual limitation therefor and the reference to a specific number of acres were dropped. The States later receded from that view. Since Justice's draft stipulation indicated the possibility of more than one priority date for Imperial Irrigation District, the District stated it would accept a 1901 priority date for its PPRs, the year in which Colorado River water was first delivered to Imperial Valley lands. That same year was acceptable to Arizona districts for their claims. Palo Verde Irrigation District indicated it would check its priority date. It was concluded that the States would prepare their own draft stipulation and lists of PPR claims within their States. F.6.1. California's Draft of Priorities On October 7, 1966, California submitted its draft of Stipulation of PPR claims. It used a single consumptive use figure which was applicable district-wide for Imperial Irrigation District and Palo Verde Irrigation District, but stated that the Bard Unit claims were based on landownerships of farm units. Reclamation expressed disappointment at the State's rejection of the alternative, dual form provided in the United States draft of PPR claims which would equate non-Indian PPRs with the PPRs of the Indian Reservations as provided in Article II (D) of the Decree and the fact that the Bard Unit's PPR claim was based upon separate priorities for each individual ownership rather than assigning the priority on a district-wide basis as was done for Imperial and Palo Verde Irrigation Districts (see letter of Regional Director, Reclamation, to California Attorney General, dated November 17, 1966). This difference of opinion continued to be a major reason for failing to make progress on a stipulated form of Decree. F.6.2. Efforts to Agree on PPR Statement At meetings on December 13 and 14, 1966, no progress was made on the use of the dual limitation and it was concluded that, in compliance with amended Article VI of the Decree, each party would file its own PPR claims with the Supreme Court on or before March 9, 1967. Representatives of the BIA attended these meetings and reported thereon to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on December 12, 1966. By memorandum of December 16, 1966, the Regional Solicitor furnished the Deputy Solicitor with a list of Indian Reservation PPRs with a segregation of the quantities of water allocated by States and stated in terms of a dual limitation. The breakdown was worked out with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix Area Office. By letter of December 20, 1966, to Interior, Justice stated its understanding of the prior PPR meetings with the States and the decision that the United States would present claims (to be initially prepared by Interior) for the Federal Reclamation Projects (but not for Imperial or Palo Verde Irrigation Districts) using the alternative or dual formula with priority dates related to water filings and Notices of Appropriation by the United States for the several projects. The acreages would be cumulative; i.e., the total of all the lands ever |
