1 JOHN E. THORSON Special Master 2 Arizona General Stream Adjudication Arizona State Courts Building, Suite 228 1501 W. Washington Street 3 Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-9600 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 5 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 6 IN RE THE GENERAL ADJUDICATION W-1 (Salt) OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN THE W-2 (Verde) 7 GILA RIVER SYSTEM AND SOURCE W-3 (Upper Gila) W-4 (San Pedro) 8 Consolidated 9 Contested Case No. W1-203 10 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER ___________________________________ 11 12 CONTESTED CASE NAME: In re the Water Rights of the Gila River Indian Community 13 DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: The Special Master submits his report to the Superior 14 Court on motions for summary judgment filed by the Gila Valley Irr. Dist. et al. (Mar. 1, 1999) (Docket No 119), San Carlos Apache Tribe et al. (Mar. 1, 1999) (Docket 15 No 118), San Carlos Irr. & Drainage Dist. (Oct. 4, 1999) (Docket No 206), and ASARCO Inc. (April 25, 1999) (Docket No 202). The report includes findings of fact, 16 conclusions of law, recommendations, proposed order, and a motion that the proposed order be entered by the Court. Objections to the report must be filed by 17 July 26, 2000, and responses by August 9, 2000. The hearing on any objections will be taken up at the next scheduled conference or hearing before Judge Bolton held 18 after August 9, 2000, or as otherwise ordered. 19 NO. OF PGS. - 91 ; App. A – 2 pgs.; App. B – 4 pgs.; App. C – 6 pgs.; Certificate of Service – 1 pg.: Total – 104 pages. 20 DATE OF FILING: Original delivered to the Clerk of the Court on June 30, 2000. 21 22 23 GRICReport/FINAL/June30,2000 1 1 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 2 I. Introduction......................................................................................................................4 3 II. Statement of the Case......................................................................................................6 4 III. Preclusive Effect of the Globe Equity Decree............................................................10 5 A. Introduction........................................................................................................10 6 B. Nevada v. United States (Orr Ditch Decree) ................................................14 7 1. Federal District Court Proceedings.....................................................17 8 2. U.S. Court of Appeals Decision...........................................................18 9 3. U.S. Supreme Court Opinion..............................................................20 10 4. Comparison of Orr Ditch and Globe Equity .....................................24 11 C. Arizona v. California........................................................................................26 12 D. Findings of Fact..................................................................................................31 13 E. Conclusions of Law...........................................................................................44 14 1. Choice of Law..........................................................................................46 15 2. Federal Doctrine of Res Judicata.........................................................47 16 a. Consent Decrees.........................................................................49 17 b. Same Claim or Cause of Action..............................................50 18 c. Same Parties................................................................................54 19 d. Changed Circumstances...........................................................57 20 3. Federal Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel.............................................59 21 4. Orr Ditch Exception to Res Judicata’s Mutuality Requirement...65 22 5. Responses to Other of the Community’s Arguments...................67 23 F. Recommendation..............................................................................................71 GRICReport/FINAL/June30,2000 2 1 IV. Claims to the San Carlos River...................................................................................73 2 A. Introduction........................................................................................................73 3 B. Findings of Fact..................................................................................................76 4 C. Conclusions of Law...........................................................................................76 5 D. Recommendation..............................................................................................77 6 V. Effect of Landowner and Repayment Agreements.................................................78 7 A. Introduction........................................................................................................78 8 B. Findings of Fact..................................................................................................80 9 C. Conclusions of Law...........................................................................................81 10 D. Recommendation..............................................................................................82 11 VI. Effect of Water Rights Settlement and Exchange Agreement..............................82 12 A. Introduction........................................................................................................82 13 B. Findings of Fact..................................................................................................85 14 C. Conclusions of Law...........................................................................................86 15 D. Recommendation..............................................................................................88 16 VII. Motion for Approval of Master’s Report and for Entry of Proposed Order......88 17 VIII. Notice of Subsequent Proceedings.............................................................................89 18 Appendices 19 A. Index of All Pleadings Concerning Motions Heard on April 26, 2000 20 B. Proposed Order 21 C. Court-approved Mailing List 22 23 Certificate of Service GRICReport/FINAL/June30,2000 3 1 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER Contested Case No. W1-203 2 In re the Water Rights of the Gila River Indian Community Motions for Summary Judgment 3 Heard on April 26, 2000 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 The Pimas and Maricopas of the Gila River Indian Community, perhaps of all 6 American Indian tribes, epitomize the agrarian, pastoral, and civilized communities 7 envisioned when the federal government sought to restrict native people to ever- 8 diminishing reservations. The Pima and Maricopa people were generally cordial 9 and helpful to the Europeans and Americans who entered and settled within their 10 aboriginal range. Their hospitality was not always returned in kind, as settlers 11 continually encroached on Indian lands and water. 12 The Pimas and Maricopas of the Gila River Indian Reservation, established by 13 Congress in 1859, had abundant arable lands but the misfortune of a middle-river 14 location that allowed upstream settlers, who moved into the upper valley from 15 Florence to the Duncan-Virden area starting in the 1860s, to easily diminish Gila 16 River flows. Having assumed fiduciary obligations for these Indian people, the 17 United States government undertook a series of initiatives to secure adequate water 18 for the reservation. During the 50 years from 1875 to 1925, the federal government 19 sought to buffer Indian agriculture by additions to the reservation made through a 20 series of seven presidential executive orders (expanding the size of the reservation 21 from 100 to 580 square miles); encouraged Indian groundwater use; authorized and 22 constructed the San Carlos Project, a collection of water storage and distribution 23 facilities (most notably Coolidge Dam and San Carlos Reservoir); and initiated GRICReport/FINAL/June30,2000 4 1 federal court litigation, now widely known as Globe Equity No. 59,1 to settle water 2 rights on the upper mainstem of the Gila River. 3 For the 65-year period since it was entered in 1935, the Globe Equity consent 4 decree has comprised the “law of the Gila River” although the meaning of the legal 5 regime has often been litigated and debated. Although among the principal 6 beneficiaries of the Globe Equity Decree, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) is 7 not a party to the decree. Indeed, its predecessor, the Pima Indian Tribal Council, 8 was denied the opportunity to intervene and participate in the Globe Equity 9 litigation, days before the consent decree was entered. Until 1982, the interests of 10 these Indians in the Gila River were asserted by the United States, although the 11 fidelity of federal representation has often been challenged by the Community in 12 other venues. Simply stated, the Community does not believe the Globe Equity 13 Decree embodies all of their rights and interests to the Gila River and its tributaries. 14 Arizona’s general stream adjudication has applied another layer of 15 complexity to the upper Gila River and the Community’s rights in those waters. 16 The Gila River Indian Community, supported by the United States, believes that 17 additional water rights beyond those established in Globe Equity can be claimed and 18 established in the Gila River system through this state court adjudication. Non- 19 Indian claimants assert that the Community’s claims to Gila River water are limited 20 by the preclusive effect of the Globe Equity Decree and certain contractual obligations 21 entered into by the Community or