OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER X 167 Justice still adhered to the dual limitation statement of priorities and that Reclamation could not commit the United States to a stipulated settlement on any other basis (see memoranda of November 13, 1970, and June 3, 1971, from Chief, Division of Water and Land Operations, to Commissioner of Reclamation). The United States "compromise" figures were discussed by Reclamation with the parties. The Colorado River Board of California had developed new figures of maximum annual diversions prior to June 25, 1929 (see the Board's memorandum dated January 29, 1971, to Mr. Ely), which, with the modifications shown, they recommended be accepted. There were: Reclamation's Col. River Col. River figures Bd. 1/29/71 Bd. 4/16/71 Imperial Irr. Dist. 2,600,000 af 2,714,000 af 2,600,000 af Palo Verde Irr. Dist. 200,000 af 219,800 af 219,800 af Reservation Div. (Bard) "37,300 af 30,400 af 40,400 af Yuma Project, Valley Div. 261,400 af 254,200 af 254,200 af Yuma Auxiliary Project 6,800 af 6,800 af 6,800 af No. Gila Valley Irr. Dist. 30,000 af 22,000 af 22,000 - 30,000 af The Arizona PPR claimants also accepted the "compromise" figures (see letter of June 14, 1971, from Valley Division to Reclamation and letter of August 23, 1971, from the California Attorney General to Bard Irrigation District). J. Miscellaneous Claims On June 15, 1970, Arizona advised all its miscellaneous PPR claimants as to which claims its own investigations could support and which claims the United States could accept. Four claims were accepted in their entirety for a total of 493 acres. Ten claims were wholly unacceptable to the United States, of which eight were unacceptable to Arizona. Five claims were supportable in part by Arizona, four of which the United States could support in part. Of the total Arizona miscellaneous PPR claims for 11,430 acres, the United States could support claims for 1,063 acres and Arizona for 1,328 acres. By letter of June 14, 1971, to the Regional Solicitor, Arizona attempted to explain the discrepancy between the two views. Discussions continued between the parties in a further effort to resolve these differences. A memorandum of July 23, 1971, from the Colorado River Board to the Attorney General's Office discussed the background of the PPR claims for the city of Needles. A memorandum to the files dated December 31, 1971, from the Chief Engineer, Colorado River Board, explained the basis for the derivation of a PPR claim of 1,500 acre-feet of diversions and a consumptive use of 950 acre-feet for the city of Needles. Between August 23, 1971, and November 23, 1971, there was an exchange of correspondence between Bard Irrigation District of California and the California Attorney General in which Bard questioned California's presentation of its PPR claim in terms of individual ownerships and entries in contrast to its presentation of the claims for the Imperial and Palo Verde Irrigation Districts in the Districts' names. The Attorney General's Office response was that Bard thereby enjoyed an advantage in maximizing its claim which is not available to the other districts. A letter from the Colorado River Board of California to Reclamation dated October 4, 1971, discussed the State's efforts to resolve their miscellaneous claims. A copy of California's summary thereof follows: |