OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER X 173 A memorandum of January 31, 1974, from the Assistant Secretary, Program Development and Budget, to the Under Secretary, noting the Indian Tribes claims of insufficient rights and suggesting a delay in the matter of PPRs, did little towards clarifying the situation. As analyzed by the Field Solicitor's memorandum of February 22, 1973, to the Associate Solicitor, Energy and Resources, and as viewed by Justice, it contained sufficient errors to prompt Justice to advise the Solicitor that there was a "considerable misunderstanding" of the role of Justice and that a meeting by Justice with the Indians would be premature until the matter is fully understood by officials of Interior. California receded partially from its prior position as to the statement of PPR claims. On March 12, 1974, in an effort to meet Justice's objections, it advised Justice that the rights of the Indians need not be included in the list of the PPRs prepared pursuant to Article VI of the Decree since they are already covered in Article II(D) but more importantly, the States inserted acreage figures, or the number of irrigable acres, in each of the major PPR claims. Justice requested Interior's views on that proposal. In response to the Associate Solicitor's request for an opinion thereon, the Field Solicitor, Riverside, noted on April 12, 1974, that the inclusion of references to the specific number of acres within each of the projects was an improvement over prior drafts; that while it does not provide Interior with the same measure of control over water use as does the dual limitation now incorporated in Article II (D) of the Decree for Indian Reservations, it does provide a partial limitation on the use of diverted water, but that the California proposal did not meet Justice's attempt to equate Indian PPRs with the non-Indian PPRs. L.3. Delay in Consideration of Draft Stipulation On June 28, 1974, the Solicitor advised Justice that in view of the Indian concern over their PPRs and the need for further investigation, a 7-month delay was requested by Interior for responding to the States latest proposal. Justice so advised the States on July 16, 1974. On August 27, 1974, the States wrote the Secretary and criticized the Solicitor for receding from the Department's prior approval of the stipulation. They enclosed a chronology of highlights of the PPR activities, and requested a meeting with the Secretary. The Secretary replied on October 2, 1974, that, due to the strong representations from the Indian Tribes, studies were needed as to the reliability of some of the figures used for the non-Indian PPR claims. This led to a meeting on March 18, 1975, betweeen the States and the Solicitor, a date selected to allow the Indian Tribes the necessary time for examination of a study made by Earth Environmental Consultants, Inc., as to the irrigability of lands not considered irrigable in the United States presentation of the Indian rights in Arizona v. California. In a letter to the Secretary dated March 12, 1975, the Lower Basin States, speaking through the California Attorney General, reviewed the nature of the PPR problem and the negotiations to resolve it. They reiterated that the PPRs of the Indian Reservations are specifically excluded by the provisions of Article VI from the list of the PPRs to be filed by the States and that the Indian PPRs are not only quantified by Article II (D) but are subject to modification, apart from Article VI, through the provisions of Article IX. Article IX provides: "Any of the parties may apply at the foot of this Decree for its amendment or for further relief. The Court retains jurisdiction of this suit for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the Decree, or any supplementary decree, that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy." It was the States position that the proposed stipulation poses neither a practical nor a legal threat to the Indian Reservations interests and that, given the non-Indian PPRs and priority dates and the hydrologic experience, the Upper Basin Compact obligation to deliver 75 maf every 10 years, and the quantity of water in storage, there is "...virtually no chance that any of the five Indian Reservations would ever be denied their full annual allotment of water specified in the Decree...." LA. Indian Objections to Draft Stipulation A March 18, 1975, meeting was attended by representatives of all the parties in Arizona v. California and by the Indian Tribes. The Tribes challenged the accuracy of some of the non-Indian PPR claims, such as |