OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER X 175 L.5. Nathanson's Analysis of Foregoing At Reclamation's request, Mr. Nathanson reviewed the Veeder report and on October 20, 1975, presented a documented refutation of its charges. After their review of Mr. Nathanson's conclusions the Lower Basin States concurred with his responses in a letter of November 18, 1975. In the States view, the Veeder report expressed nothing new or relevant, hence the States again urged Interior's approval of the proposed stipulation. By memorandum of December 2, 1975, to the Solicitor, Reclamation also concurred in the findings of Mr. Nathanson that the issues raised in both the documents submitted by Messrs. Gookin and Veeder, as they relate to non-Indian PPRs, had been previously argued and resolved before the Supreme Court during the trial of Arizona v. California, or during the negotiations with the States which culminated in the subject stipulation. Reclamation recommended that the stipulation be filed with the Supreme Court and that it be acted upon independently of Indian efforts to expand their water rights over the amounts established by the Supreme Court Decree in 1964. L.6. Solicitor's Review of Background of Stipulation A "Summary Statement for Solicitor Austin" designated "W.O. Draft, Revised M.N.N. 5-7-76" describes the background of the latest draft of stipulaton and summarizes both the Indian arguments and those of Reclamation and the States regarding the stipulation. Interior's Solicitor Austin invited the States representatives to discuss the matter on June 15, 1976. The States then indicated a willingness to subordinate their PPR claims to those of the five Indian Reservations as stated in Article II(D) of the Decree. Interior said Justice wanted the Indian PPRs stated in terms of a single diversion figure similar to the format proposed for the non-Indian PPRs, but the States disagreed. Interior also proposed a restatement of the original Justice proposal that explained the use of an irrigation district's boundaries as satisfying the term "defined area of land" in Article I(G) of the Decree. M. States Revised Proposed Stipulation On July 2, 1976, the States submitted a revised draft of stipulation which incorporated the Interior proposals of June 15, 1976. It included the subordination of the non-Indian PPRs to those of the Indians as set forth in the Decree plus a maximum quantity for rights resulting from boundary changes, up to an additional 4,255 acres, as ordered by the Secretary, between the date of the Decree and the date of the stipulation, and "as are hereafter established by decree or future stipulation"; i.e., the States were not accepting the validity of the boundary enlargement but only the formula for determining the rights to water if the enlarged boundaries were found to be correct and the land found to be "practicable of irrigation." The States also proposed that the subordination not apply to the miscellaneous claims because of the difficulty in reaching all of the miscellaneous claimants and obtaining their agreement, and the limited quantities of such rights; e.g., 4,200 acre-feet in California and 10,000 acre-feet in Arizona. And finally, the States acceded to Interior's view that the non-Indian rights be stated in terms of a dual limitation identical in format to the Indian PPRs in Article II(D) of the Decree. In response to the Solicitor's request of August 4, 1976, to Reclamation and the BIA, for comments, Counsel for the Confederated Tribes of the Lower Colorado River, on August 1976, proposed major changes in the stipulation which would include the Tribes as parties to the stipulation, a status not previously accorded them; and reopening other questions, some of which the Solicitor and Justice had previously resolved, such as objecting to a district-wide PPR claim as satisfying the Decree definition of a "defined area of land." The Confederation also objected to the lack of a priority for Indian PPRs over miscellaneous PPR claims, and to the failure of the States to agree in advance to a priority for Indian rights in the enlarged boundaries of Reservations. The United States then demanded the further condition that the States agree to additional quantified Indian water rights based on the boundary enlargements whether or not the Secretarial orders proved to be |