| OCR Text |
Show 172 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS MAJOR PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS CLAIMS Claimed in filings with the Supreme Court (acre-feet) Now proposed for a stipulated settlement* U.S. California Arizona Acre-feet Priority Date Cibola Valley Claims -Arizona Misc. Claims - Arizona Supp'l Claims - Arizona Indian Res. - Calif.* Misc. Claims - Calif. Indian Res. - Nevada* Lake Mead NRA - Nevada* 27.7061 45,084' J 8,000' 131,400* 12,534* 500* 4,145.7 1 4 0 10,781* various 0 131,400* various 5,001* various 12,534* Sept. 18, 1890 500' May 3, 1929 'Consumptive Use. 'Diversion. 'Does not include four subsequent claims involving a diversion of approximately 3,000 acre-feet per annum. 'Does not include 38 subsequent claims involving a diversion of approximately 276 acre-feet per annum. 'Federal establishments named in Article II, subdivision (D), paragraphs (1) through (6) of the decree of March 9, 1964. L. 1. Justice's Revision of Interior's Draft Stipulation On September 17, 1973, Justice suggested a modification of the Interior draft stipulation of April 12, 1973, which would modify and conform the statement of the Federal present perfected rights; i.e., primarily the Indian Reservations, to the single diversion figure provided for the non-Federal major irrigation districts and would add a reasonable use requirement applicable to all PPRs. The proposed action was consistent with Interior's prior position set out in the aforementioned Solicitor's letter to Justice dated January 20, 1967, but had not been cleared by either Interior or Justice with the Indian Tribes whose PPRs were involved. The Justice revision also provided a new paragraph which explained that the Decree reference to a "defined area of land" can best be complied with by reference to the boundaries of an irrigation district. L.2. California's Modification of Justice's Revisions At a meeting in Denver on November 19, 1973, between Justice and the parties to Arizona v. California, Justice insisted that the non-Indian PPRs and the Indian PPRs be stated in a similar format. On December 19, 1973, the Lower Basin States reiterated their views that the Indian rights would be protected if cross-referenced in the stipulation without specifically enumerating them in the stipulation since the Indian rights are already spelled out in Article II(D) of the Decree. The States provided a revised draft of stipulation. This version referred the Indian PPRs to Article II(D) of the Decree, omitted Justice's explanation regarding "defined area of land," and modified Justice's addition of reasonable use requirements. On January 22, 1974, the Field Solicitor at Riverside, California (the successor to the Regional Solicitor's Office, Los Angeles), provided the Solicitor with an analysis of the California draft stipulation of December 19, 1973. He noted the need for further discussions with the Indian Tribes whose PPRs were involved and the indications of resistance by the States to an enlargement of the Indians decreed PPRs for water, which the Tribes were then in the process of documenting, since any increase in Indian PPRs will reduce the water supply for non-Indian contractors who lack a PPR. |
