OCR Text |
Show 178 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Hence, the United States considered intervention by the Tribes to be unwarranted; that the Tribes interests are fully represented by the United States; and that the Tribes be permitted to submit their views as amid curiae. On April 7, 1978, a Petition of Intervention was filed on behalf of the three Tribes and for the Colorado River Indian Tribe and the Confederation of Indian Tribes. (The Colorado River Indian Tribe later removed itself from this Petition.) The Petition incorporated the prior Motion and Brief. It alleged among other things: A. The Tribes are owners of full equitable title to PPRs. B. The Tribes are the real parties in interest. C. The United States is Trustee for the Tribes and is obligated to represent the Tribes before the Court. D. The Secretary is unable to fulfill the obligations of trustee, to the irreparable damage to the Tribes, because of conflicting responsibilities. E. The Solicitor General is subject to conflicting interests and represents Interior and adverse claims of non-Indian projects. F-G. The 13-year delay in resolving PPRs is due to conflicts of interest of the Secretary. H-I-J. The negotiations were unsuccessful because of disputes among the parties, were conducted without participation of the Tribes, and resulted in the present action. K-R.The Tribes are prepared to contravene each of the non-Indian PPR claims, if afforded an opportunity to do so. S. The United States has not denied the "spurious claims" but is in accord with them, T-U. The Tribes will prove, if permitted, that non-Indian PPR claims are unconscionably inflated, that the Lower Colorado River is overappropriated and the present municipal use of waters owned by the Tribes makes their recovery difficult, and that the Secretary is building the Central Arizona Project, in total disregard of the Tribes rights. The three Tribes further allege that, although representing the Indians, the United States has willfully failed to maintain communications with the Tribes as to the PPR negotiations; that Interior has limited the exercise of Indian PPRs for the benefit of non-Indian projects and uses; that non-Indians on the Federal reclamation projects received 160 acres while Indians on the Fort Yuma and Colorado River Indian Reservations received 5 acres; and attached an affidavit of a Bureau of Indian Affairs employee attesting to the foregoing. The three tribes further allege that the United States refusal to establish boundaries on the Reservations is an example of Interior's policy to prevent the exercise of the Indians' PPRs; that no claims were asserted for Indian lands within the enlarged boundaries of the Reservations or for irrigable lands within the 1964 Reservation boundaries which were arbitrarily and capriciously abandoned; that the Tribes have been discriminated against by the refusal to provide funds to protect their interests in Arizona v. California; that patent ambiguities in the "Proposed Supplemental Decree," if adopted, will accentuate and not ameliorate ongoing conflicts; that intervention by the Tribes will expedite and not impede the ultimate conclusion of Arizona v. California; and that the alleged subordination is a "fraud and a subterfuge." Wherefore, the Tribes petition that the Court will: (1) Allow the Tribes to intervene and have their own counsel; (2) Not grant the Joint Motion for a determination of PPRs; and (3) Require all parties to meet to resolve conflicts-or if agreement cannot be reached, to file separate statements. An Exhibit C to the Petition listed a total of 91,400 irrigable acres and 605,300 acre-feet of water therefor contained within Reservation boundaries and not presented to the Court in Arizona v. California. A brief in support of the Tribes Petition of Intervention, dated April 7, 1978, alleged that the Solicitor General violated the "Code of Professional Responsibility" in Arizona v. California in that he represents the Secretary of the Interior whose interests are widely disparate from the interests of the Tribes. The brief claimed that the Tribes PPRs are invaluable interests in real property and that Justice's approval of the non-Indian PPRs, but not those of the Tribes, is a breach of trust, as is the failure of the United States to consult or confer with the Tribes and the inadequate representation of the Tribes by the United States in Arizona v. California. Finally, the brief reiterated the Tribes need for independent counsel. |