| OCR Text |
Show 192 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Order of May 15, 1876, established a boundary which changes as the course of the Colorado River changes, except when such changes are due to an avulsion. He further held that two avulsive changes had severed lands from the Reservation and placed these lands on the west side of the river. The effect of the Master's holding was to disallow any claim of the United States for water for lands south of section 25, T. 2 S., R. 23 E., which were located on the west side of the Colorado River except in the two areas the Master found to have been severed from the Reservation and placed on the west side of the river by man-made avulsive changes in the river's course. "Before the Supreme Court, California excepted to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Special Master. In ruling thereon, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Special Master's decision to determine the disputed boundary of the Colorado River Indian Reservation. Arizona v. California et al., 373 U.S. 546, 601 (1963). The effect of the Supreme Court's decision was to leave the boundary question open for future determination." The Solicitor concluded that "the top of Riverside Mountain" means the highest point of that mountain and a 1912 survey by R. A. Farmer of that supposed monument was suspended. He stated that the call from that point to the west bank must be taken to mean the line of ordinary high water as it existed in 1876. The Solicitor then adopted a meander corner common to sections 25 and 36, T. 2 S., R. 23 E., SBM, established by W. F. Benson in 1879, at a point on the west bank of the river which also fell on the line between the highest point on Riverside Mountain and the place of beginning. The Solicitor concluded that the Reservation boundary follows the western bank of the river at the line of ordinary high water as it existed at the time of the issuance of the Executive Order of May 16, 1876, subject to the application of the doctrine of erosion and accretion and avulsion to any intervening changes. And, finally, the Solicitor concluded that at the time of the Executive Order of May 15, 1876, the United states owned the area between ordinary high water mark and low water mark and these were included in the Reservation (see Appendix 1107 for text of Opinion). The Solicitor's opinion of January 17, 1969, was followed by a Secretarial directive of the same date which suspended certain surveys of record (i.e., 1913 and 1964) which did not properly locate the boundary line, and reinstated other surveys (i.e., 1874, 1958, and 1962) in order to conform the Reservation boundaries to the conclusions reached in the Solicitor's Opinion (see Appendix 1108 for text of Order). Although Secretary Hickel suspended this Order on June 4, 1969, the suspension was lifted on June 2, 1970. G.4. Litigation The United States initiated several civil actions in the United States District Court, Central District of California, including those named below, to, among other things, recover possession of real property and premises as the owner in trust for the Colorado River Indian Tribes, said lands having been reserved as a part of the Colorado River Indian Reservation by the Executive Order of May 15, 1876. Judgments were entered pursuant to stipulations of the parties affirming ownerships in the United States in trust for the Tribe. U.S. v. Curtis, Civ. No. 72-1624 - DWW - Judgment entered January 10, 1977. U.S. v. Brigham Young University, Civ. No. 72-30580 DWN - Judgment entered December 16, 1976. U.S. v. Aranson et al., Civ. No. 72-1621 - R.C.D. Cal. - The judgment therein entered February 19, 1977, involving the 2,058 acres in the Olive Lake Cutoff, has been appealed and is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals. G.5. Special Master's Finding Finally, the Special Master's Report, page 272, in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340, 345, found that, for the benefit of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, the United States had the right to the annual diversion of a maximum of 717,148 acre-feet for 107,588 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses. The Supreme Court modified this finding by providing that those quantities were subject to appropriate adjustment by agreement or decree of the Court in the event the boundaries are finally determined. |
