| OCR Text |
Show 166 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS It was noted that while the final figures were less than the States claims, they were defensible and, if they were to be revised, lower figures could be equally defended. A significant fact in the "compromise" was the acceptance by a new Deputy Solicitor of Reclamation's adoption of the concept that had always been urged by the States as to the statement of the PPR claims in terms of a single diversion figure rather than in terms of the dual limitation used in Article II(D) of the Decree for the Indian Reservation. This occurred in the fall of 1969 following the departure from Interior of then Solicitor Weinberg and Associate Solicitor Hogan. Justice, however, did not drop its adherence to a statement of the non-Indian PPRs in a format similar to the dual limitation used for the Indian Reservation. The draft statement rationale of "12/15/69" was modified and redesignated "1-19-70" as a result of a Washington Office request that the compromise PPR claims be stated in quantities generally based upon 6 acre-feet per irrigated acre of diversions from the mainstream rather than 5.6 acre-feet. This caused the following increases in the States PPR claims which were stated in terms of a single diversion figure: from 2,483,000 acre-feet to 2,600,000 acre-feet 182,000 acre-feet to 200,000 acre-feet 34,804 acre-feet to 37,300 acre-feet California: Imperial Irr. Dist. from Palo Verde Irr. Dist. from Reservation Division from Arizona: Valley Division from No. Gila Valley Unit from Yuma Auxiliary Proj. from 244,000 acre-feet to 261,400 acre-feet 28,000 acre-feet to 30,000 acre-feet 6,800 acre-feet to 6,800 acre-feet (See Regional Solicitor's covering letter of January 20, 1970, to Reclamation.) The Regional Solicitor's letter noted that the diversion figures used in the statements were essentially the product of administrative rather than legal evaluations or determinations and repeated the earlier view that, while the water use figures were generally less than those in the States claims, even lower figures could be justified. The draft statement of "12-15-69", revised "1-19-70", was further modified 1-26-72 and 1-28-72 to eliminate all references to the background and basis of each claim as filed with the Supreme Court, the enlarged claims later filed informally with the parties, and the objections of the United States to each claim. Because Interior had dropped its insistence on the dual limitation, the Regional Solicitor advised the Associate Solicitor on January 27, 1970, of the relationship between the prospective non-Indian PPR claims and the water rights then established for Indian Reservations; the impact of the use of a single diversion figure for the pending non-Indian PPR claims on the dual limitation provided in the Decree for the Indian Reservations; and the possible impact on the water supply for the Central Arizona Project if a single diversion figure was used for the Indian Reservation. Reclamation Initiative in Compromise PPR Statement Reclamation took the initiative in furthering the progress of negotations on PPRs. At a November 5, 1969, meeting with Justice's attorneys at which the draft compromise statement (later designated "12/15/69") was discussed, it was understood that no figures were to be communicated to the non-Federal parties until approved by Justice, but that in the meantime efforts should be made to resolve the miscellaneous claims. Unfortunately, Justice neither formally approved nor disapproved the figures in the draft statement and a subsequent meeting between Reclamation and Justice did not occur until November 10, 1970,or 1 year later. At a meeting of November 10, 1970, with Reclamation, Justice argued for the dual limitation on the non-Indian PPR claims but agreed that Reclamation could contact the parties but only after advising them that |
