OCR Text |
Show 176 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS legal. The States rejected this (see States memorandum in support of proposed Supplemental Decree, page 24, May 2, 1977). A meeting on December 16, 1976, between the States and Interior's Solicitor Austin was inconclusive. The States urged resolution of the miscellaneous claims as stopping a hardship on the claimants who are "trespassers" without an agreement and because only 17,500 acre-feet of water was involved, 12,500 acre-feet in Arizona and 5,000 acre-feet in California. On January 19, 1977, Solicitor Austin rejected the States Proposed Stipulation as well as any agreement on the miscellaneous claimants. The efforts to negotiate and stipulate to a Decree regarding Present Perfected Rights had failed. N. Upper Colorado River Commission's Observation It is interesting to note that in 1964 the Upper Colorado River Commission made the following observation: "It is possible that this case (Arizona v. California) has not been terminated because of the inability of the parties to agree as to what are present perfected rights in terms of consumptive use as required by this Decree, and that there will be need for a final determination by the Court to ultimately settle this particular issue." (See page 35, Sixteenth Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, September 30, 1964.) O. Back to the Supreme Court Because of the inability to reach an agreement, on May 3, 1977, Arizona, Nevada and the California Defendants, moved the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article VI of the Decree, for a determination of present perfected rights as set forth in the submitted proposed supplemental decree and for the entry of that decree. Their grounds were that: (1) Article VI of the Decree provides for a determination of these rights if the parties and the Secretary are unable to agree thereon and the parties have been unable to secure the Secretary's approval; and (2) the Secretary has no valid basis for his refusal. The proposed Decree was set out in the Motion. It included provisions that the determination shall in no way affect future adjustments resulting from determinations relating to settlement of Indian Reservation boundaries referred to in Article II(D)(5) of said Decree; that Article IX of said Decree is not affected by this list of PPRs; that any water right listed herein may only be exercised for beneficial and reasonable uses; and that in the event of insufficient mainstream water to satisfy PPRs pursuant to Article H(B)(3) of the Decree, the Secretary shall, before satisfying any other PPRs except the miscellaneous, first satisfy the rights of the five Indian Reservations as set forth in Article II(D)(5), plus such additional PPRs as may be hereafter established by decree or future stipulation that are based on orders of the Secretary enlarging the boundaries of the Reservations that have been issued between the date of the Decree and May 2, 1977 (the date of the subject Motion). The States asserted in an accompanying memorandum that the Indians were not prejudiced by the proposed decree but that their water rights are actually strengthened because of the subordination of the non-Indian claims to the Indian PPRs (except for the miscellaneous claims which are minor). The response of the United States, dated November 1977, and filed November 10, 1977, agreed that a motion for determination of PPRs is appropriate under Article VI of the Decree and stated that the United States does not oppose the entry of the proposed supplementary decree if the following several modifications were made: (1) That any water right may only be exercised for beneficial uses; i.e., delete "and reasonable." (2) That the determination of the boundaries of the Reservations not be limited to those made by Secretarial orders between the date of the Decree and May 2, 1977. The reasons therefor were that certain boundary changes for the Cocopah and Colorado River Indian Reservations were made by Court orders, and that no time limit for boundary changes had been contemplated in prior discussions. (The time limit would have affected a later Secretarial Order changing the boundaries of the Fort Yuma Reservation.) The United States did, however, oppose the entry of the proposed decree if its suggested modifications were not made, and recommended the appointment of a Special Master. In that case proof would be required to support the non-Indian claims. |