| OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX IX 1X5 (1) The doctrine of equitable apportionment should not be used to divide the water between the Indians and the other people in the State of Arizona. P. 597. (2) Under its broad powers to regulate navigable waters under the Commerce Clause and to regulate government lands under Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution, the United States had power to reserve water rights for its reservations and its property. Pp. 597-598. (3) The reservations of land and water are not invalid though they were originally set apart by Executive Order. P. 598. (4) The United States reserved the water rights for the Indians, effective as of the time the Indian reservations were created, and these water rights, having vested before the Act became effective in 1929, are "present perfected rights" and as such are entitled to priority under the Act. Pp. 598-600. (5) This Court sustains the Master's conclusions that enough water was intended to be reserved to satisfy the future, as well as the present, needs of the Indian reservations and that enough water was reserved to irrigate all the practicably irrigable acreage on the reservations, and also his findings as to the various acreages of irrigable land existing on the different reservations. Pp. 600-601. (b) This Court disagrees with the Master's decision to determine the disputed boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation, since it is not necessary to resolve those disputes here. P. 601. (c) This Court agrees with the Master's conclusions that the United States intended to reserve water sufficient for the future requirements of the Lake Mead National Recreational Area, the Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge and the Gila National Forest. P. 601. (d) This Court rejects the claim of the United States that it is entitled to the use, without charge against its consumption, of any waters that would have been wasted but for salvage by the Government on its wildlife preserves. P. 601. (e) This Court agrees with the Master that all uses of mainstream water within a State are to be charged against that State's apportionment, which, of course, includes uses by the United States. P. 601. Mark Wilmer reargued the cause for complainant. With him on the briefs were Chas. H. Reed, William R. Meagher, Burr Sutter, John E. Madden, Calvin H. Udall, John Geoffrey Will, W. H. Roberts and Theodore Kiendl. Northcutt Ely, Special Assistant Attorney General of California, reargued the cause for the State of California et al., defendants. With him on the briefs were Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, Charles E. Corker and Gilbert F. Nelson, Assistant Attorneys General, Burton J. Gindler, John R. Alexander and Gerald Malkan, Deputy Attorneys General, Shirley M. Hufstedler, Howard I. Friedman, C. Emerson Duncan II, Jerome C. Muys, Francis E. Jenney, Stanley C. Lagerlof, Roy H. Mann, Harry W. Horton, R. L. Knox, Jr., Earl Red-wine, James H. Howard, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., H. Kenneth Hutchinson, Frank P. Doherty, Roger Arnebergh, Gilmore Tillman, Alan M. Firestone, Jean F. DuPaul and Henry A. Dietz. Solicitor General Cox reargued the cause for the United States, intervener. With him on the briefs were John F. Davis, David R. Warner, Walker Kiechel, Jr. and Warren R. Wise. R. P. Parry reargued the cause for the State of Nevada, intervener. With him on the briefs were Roger D. Foley, Attorney General, W. T. Mathews and Clifford E. Fix. |
