| OCR Text |
Show 194 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS H.4 Departmental Actions On April 17, 1974, the Associate Solicitor, Indian Affairs, advised the Commissioner of Reclamation that the Blout survey was not controlling, that the Wheeler line was correct, and that the Reservation encompassed a full 9,114.81 acres. On June 3, 1974, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior advised the Secretary that the western boundary of the Reservation was most accurately reflected by the courses, distances and acreage descriptions contained in the plats and notes of survey which accompanied the Executive Order of March 30, 1870. This moved the western boundary to the west of the Colorado River. The Solicitor further advised that to resolve the disputes, it would be necessary to declare null and void the previous 1928 resurvey of the western boundary by Sidney Blout of the GLO, approved by the GLO in 1931, which upheld the call to artificial monuments and fixed the boundary on the east side of the river (see Appendix 1112 for text of Opinion). In a directive of the same date, June 3, 1974, the Secretary acted affirmatively on the Solicitor's Opinion. The directive nullified the 1928 Blout resurvey and plat and accepted the western Reservation boundary as defined by courses, distances and acreage as described in the plats and notes of survey accompanying the Executive Order of March 30, 1870; i.e., it fixed the boundary west of the river (see Appendix 1113 for text of Order). The Tribe alleges that the Secretarial Order recognizes that an additional approximately 3,580 irrigable acres were part of the Reservation and are entitled to a diversion duty of 6.64 acre-feet of water, with a priority date of September 19, 1980 (see Tribe's Motion for Leave to Intervene, filed December 23, 1977, with the Supreme Court). Both prior and subsequent to the 1928 survey, the GLO had patented lands adjacent to the Reserve and which are now within the enlarged Reserve after the western boundary was relocated westward. A plat of Corrective Survey was accepted by BLM on March 2, 1977. /. Conclusion As stated in an Appendix to a memorandum of October 18, 1977, from Interior's Solicitor to the Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, which provided Interior's recommendations on the position which the United States should assert in responsee to the Joint Motion of Arizona, California and Nevada on a proposed Stipulation on present perfected rights, Interior has taken all the administrative steps within its power to resolve the four aforenoted boundary disputes. It was further pointed out that while the Special Master found it necessary to determine the disputed boundaries of the Colorado River and Fort Mohave Indian Reservations, the Supreme Court did not. It stated: "We disagree with the Master's decision to determine the disputed boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation. We hold that it is unnecessary to resolve these disputes here. Should a dispute over title arise because of some future refusal by the Secretary to deliver water to either area, the dispute can be settled at that time. Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 601 (1963)." It was Interior's view that the United states could assert additional claims for the Colorado River and Fort Mohave Indian Reservations under Article H(D)(5) of the Decree. The Article provides: "...shall be subject to appropriate adjustment by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined." Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340, 345 (1964). Finally, Interior was of the view that the Court would be receptive to a motion under Article IX of the Decree of claims for additional rights for the areas added to the Cocopah and Chemehuevi Indian Reservations. That Motion for Modification of the Decree (of March 9, 1964) was filed with the Supreme Court on December 21, 1978. The details of those claims are elaborated on in Chapter I, K. entitled "Summary of 'The Law of the River,' " and in Chapter X, entitled "Present Perfected Rights." A summary appears in Chapter XI, D. herein. |
