ML20050E253
| ML20050E253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1982 |
| From: | Siegel J INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050E248 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-0145, 82-145, NUDOCS 8204130149 | |
| Download: ML20050E253 (11) | |
Text
ln THE t'::'!!.' STATf3 OI! * ?.ICT CODET FOR TiiE DISTRICT OF CCLU:!DIA c.
SALT FIVFR TIMA-MARICOPA
)
. INDI A!; CC:!! U!:ITY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
Civil No. 82-0145 v.
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
and J A:!ES C. WATT, SECRETARY
)
0F THE INTERIOR,
)
)
Dcfendants.
)
)
)
ANSWER Defendants, the United States and Jaces C. Watt, the Secretary of the Interior, in his official capacity, answer plain-tif f's complaint as follows:
First Defense The Complaint should be dis =issed because the relief it seeks is barred by the statute.of limitations.
Second Defense The Complaint should be dismissed, pursuant to Rule 19, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to name parties who are indispensable.
Third Defense The Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
i:
Fourth Defense I
Defendants respond to the allegations in the Complaint
~
in tne follo i..f. nu:bcred.Pr*fraphs.
Each para;rsph number 1
\\
A ' 8204130149 820409 PDR ADOCK 05000528 E
G PDR F'
used by refendants corresponds to the number of the paragraph in the Co: plaint where the allecations that are the subject of the responsive paragraph are found. Note that Defendant has denominated the first sentence of ea.ch paragraph as that sentence which follows the titic of each paragraph. The titles are those phrases and sentences which are entirely capitalized. The titles state conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterizations of the contents of the paragraphs, to which no response is required.
1.
The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 1 of the Conplaint, and the allegation in the second sentence of paragraph 1 of the Co= plaint, that James C. Watt is the Secretary of the Interior, are admitted. The remaining state =ents in para-graph 1 of the Conplaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
2.
The allegation in paragraph 2 of the Complaint that the Salt River Project is a federal reclacation project is admitted.
The renaining statements in paragraph 2 of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
3 The allegations in the first two sentences of para-graph 3 of the Complaint are adcitted. Sentences 3, 4, 5 and 6 of paragraph 3 of the Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the statements in sentences 5 and 6 of paragraph 3 of the Complaint are construed to be allegations, they are denied.
4.
The allegations in the first three sentences of paragraph 4 of the Complaint are admitted. The allegations in the fourth sentence of paragraph 4 of the Complaint are denied.
But it is admitted that the water referred to in sentence 3 of paragraph 4 of the Complaint is distributed to approximately
[k 1
263,000 acres in the Salt River Valley through the Salt River Project's canal sy-ten.
The allegations in the fifth sentence 9
s e
..-eam
..4-,e-em,_
meew
3 of paragraph 4 of the Complaint are admitted. Defendants lack sufficient information to be able to form a beller as to the truth of the allegations in the sixth sentence of paragraph 4 of the Ce: plaint. Defendants lack sufficient information to forn a belief as to the truth of the allegations in sentence 7 of paragraph 4 of the Complaint. Sentence 8 of paragraph 4 of the Complaint is divided by semicolons into three parts. The allegations of the first two parts of sentence 8 'of paragraph 4 of the Complaint are admitted. The allegations of the third part of sentence 8 of paragraph 4 of the Complaint ar'e denied.
But it is admitted that the Salt River Project purchases power the sources of which are the Eureau of Recla=ation dans on the Colorado" River. Defendants lack sufficient infor=ation to be abic to for= a belief as to the truth of the allegations in sentences 9 and 10 of paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5.
The allegations of the first phrase of the first sentence of paragraph 5 of the Complaint, which ends with the words "... Project facilitie,s," are denied. It is admitted that the Department of the Interior constructed the Roosevelt Dam and the Granite Reef Diversion Dan.
The remaining allegations in senter.ce 1 of paragraph 5 of the Co= plaint are admitted.
The allegations of the second sentence of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are admitted. The allegations of the first phrase of the third sentence cf paragraph 5 of the co= plaint, which ends with the date ' September 6, 1917," are denied. The contract is the best evidence of what it provides. The re=aining state =cnts in the third sentence of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. The allegations of the fourth sentence of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are denied. The contracts are the best evider.ce of what they
{4 previde. The allecations in sentence 5 of paragraph 5 of the l
l
)
)
I
e, 7
f
't
\\
't <
y j
r N
\\-
q.,
I Complaint, that the Associ.st ion operates the Salt River Project's o
3 5
s water synten and that the Distfict, e;M'rs'tas the electric.1 l
The remaining statccents in sentence power systen, are admitted.
i f-(s 5 of paragraph 5 of the' Complaint are conclusions of law ts ~
s which no response is regiiiredg Sentene'et6 of paragraprl 5 of'
-T 4
3e
- o which no responso the Conplaint states conclusions of la4
,f i
It is ad:-itted that the plair. tiff and its members is required.
residing on the reservation are ineli[ible for membershipiin f
lx, Sentence 7 of para, graph 5 of the Complaint the Association.
states conclusions of law to v.YJch no responsh s required.
i 6.
The introductory phrant of paragrapt.i 6, which 8
and ends with *.. ;. ' '
5 begins with "The plaintiff is.
specific water rights" states conclusicos of law to which no.re-
\\
,(
sponse is required.;
i
'T 1
IhcNirstsentenceofparagraph6Aof.theComplaint
\\
6A.
[
x' of law to which no response is required.
states conclusion e
y Defendar.ts lack sufficient information to, form a belief as to the truth of the allegatic'ns in.(entences two and three of
'I paragraph 6A of the Complaint.
i Prvagraph 6B of the > Complaint states conclusions.
s-60.
/
The decre'q is the '
of law to which no response is required.
s,.
s s.
best evidence-of'what it provides. t TP.e first sentence of paragraph 6C of the Complaint s.
Iy 6C.
states conclsrions of law to which rio response is required.
. /
Defendants lack suffidient infor=ation 4to form a belief as to the truth of the allegstions in [ne second sentence of paragraph s
,5 t
/-
't.
6C of the Cocplaint.
Paragraph 6D of the Co= plaint sta't'es conclusions 6D.
,N g
of law to which no response is required.
s 3
y\\
}~
,r [
'T, s.
y s'
s e t t '
4 4.I
,['
s-I a
.5..'
~
.{.
.a t
r i
7.
The introductory phrase of paragraph 7 of the Comp 1cint, which begins with "The Secretary" and ends with "in the following respects," states conclusions of law to which no response is required.
7A.
To the extent the first sentence of paragraph 7A of the Complaint incorporates by reference paragraph 6 A of l
I the Complaint, Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraph 6 A of the Complaint, which are found in paragraphs 6, 6A and 9 s
of this Answer.
Sentence 1 of paragraph 7A of the Co= plaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required.
To the extent the statements in sentence 1 of paragraph 7A of the Complaint are construed to be allegations, the allegations are denied. The second sentence in paragraph 7A of the Complaint 7
is denied.
1 7B.
To the extent the first sentence of paragraph e
I l
7B of the Complaint incorporates paragraph 6B of the Complaint,
't l~
Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraph 6B of the Complaint, which are found in paragraphs 6, 6B and 9 of this Answer. To the extent the first two sentences of paraCraph 7B of the Complaint state conclusions of law, no response is
/
required. To the extent the first two sentences of paragraph l
l-7B of the Complaint are construed as allegations, they are denied. To the extent the third sentence of paragraph 7B of the Co: plaint states conclusions of law, no response is required.
I l
To the extent the statements in the third sentence of paragraph i'h 7B of the complaint are construed to be allecations, defendant
[
lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth l t of the allegations and is therefore unable to admit or deny
/
them.
l 7C.
Sentences 1 and 2 or paragraph 7C of the Complaint j
O are denied. To the extent sentence 3 or paragraph 7C of the i
s Complaint states conclusions of law, no response is required.
~/'
3,
~
x ac l
3 j
e
To the extent the state =ents in sentence 3 of paragraph 7C of the Cc: plaint are construed tn be. allegations, those allegations are denicd. Defer. dant adcits that pursuant to an agreement cade June 3, 1035, between the United States and the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, approxi=ately 20,000 acre feet of water per year has been delivered to lands on the plaintiff's Reservation from water developed by storage in the Bartlett Dan on the Verde River.
7D.
Sentences 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of paragraph 7D of the Complaint are denied. It is ad=itted that the plaintiff's lands are not within the service area of the Salt River Project and that the decision on the definition of the service area was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on November 14, 1914. Sentence 6 of paragraph 7D of the Complaint has two parts which are separated by a semicolen. The allegations in the first part of sentence 6 of paragraph 7D of the Complaint are denied. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second part of sentence 6 of paragraph 7D of the Complaint, and therefore ca.1 neither adnit nor deny the allegations. Sentence 7 of paragraph 7D of the Co= plaint states conclusions of law to which no respons:
is required.
8.
To the extent the first sentence of paragraph 8 of the Conplaint incorporates paragraphs 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D of the Conplaint, Defendants incorporate their responses, which are found in paragraphs 6, 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D and 9 of this Answer. The first sentence of paragraph 8 of the Complaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required. The phrase in paragraph and 8 of the Complaint, that begins with "The illegal.
ends with "as follows" states conclusions of law to which no response is required.
BA.
To the extent sentence 1 of paragraph SA of the Complaint states conclusiens of law, no response is required.
The contract referred to in sentence 1 of paragraph 8A of the De fendant s Complair.t is the best.cvidence of what it provides.
lack sufficient information to for a belief as to the truth of the amount of water from the Salt River stated to be delivered to the Roosevelt Water Conservation District in sentence 1 of Sentence 2 of paragraph BA of paragraph BA of the Cc: plaint.
the Complaint states conclusions of law to which no response The Court's decision, the stipulation and the is required.
decree referred to in sentence 2 of paragraph 8A of the Complaint are the best evidence of what they provide. The allegation in the third sentence of paraCraph BA of the Co= plaint that RUCD is a farm irriration district lying wholly outside the Salt River Project district is admitted. The remaining statements in sentence 3 of paragraph BA of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Sentences 4, 5 6, 7, 8, and 9 of paragraph BA of the. Complaint state conclusions of law to which no re:ponse is required. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in sentence 10 of paragraph BA of the Complaint. The allegations in sentence 11 of paragraph SA of the Complaint are deni,ed.
It is ad=itted that defendants received a document from plaintiff that is dated March 27, 1980. The document is the best evidence of what it provides.
BB.
Sentence one of paragraph BB of the Co= plaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required.
e The contract referred to in sentence 1 of paragraph BB of the Defendants Complaint is the best evidence of what it provides.
lack sufficient inforcation to form a belief as to the truth of the amour.t of grcundwater from the Salt River Project District
t
-S-stated to be reco* ed by the Roosevelt Irrigation District in sentence 1 of paracraph 8B of the Complaint. The allegatien in sentence 2 of paragraph 83 of the Complaint that RID is a farm irrigation district lying wholly outside the Salt River Project District is admitted. The remaining statements in sentence 2 of paragraph BB of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Sentences 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of paragraph 8B of the Complaint state conclusions of law to whiqh no response is required. To the extent sentence 7 of paragraph BB of the Complair.t contains factual allegations, those allegations are denied. The allegations of sentence 8 of paragraph 8B of the Complaint are denied. It is admitted that defendants received a document from plaintiff that is dated !! arch 27, 1980. The docu:ent is the best eiidence of what it provides.
8C.
The first sentence of paragraph 8C of the Complaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required.
Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the amount of water per year that is stated to be re-ceived by the cities within the Project's boundaries in sentence 1 of paragraph BC of the Complaint. The second sentence of para-graph 8C of the Complaint states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. The contract s are the best evidence of what they provide. refendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the statements in sentence 3 of paragraph BC of the Complaint. Sentences 4, 5, 6, and 7 of paragraph BC of the Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. The allegations in sentence 8 of paragraph BC of the Complaint are denied. Sentence 9 of j
w paragraph 8C of the Cocplaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendants lack sufficient infor atien 9
l
~
}-
to for= a belief as to the truth of the allegations in sentence 10 of paracraph 8C of the Conplaint. The alleCations in sentence 11 of paragraph OC of the Complaint are denied. It is ad itted that defendants received a document fro: plaintiff that is dated Ma,rch 27, 1980. The document is the best evidence of what it provides.
BD.
Se ntence 1 of paragr,aph BD of the Complaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required.
Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the amount of effluent water stated as the amount sold in sentence 1 of the paragraph 8D of the Complaint. The allegations in sentence 2 of paragraph 8D of the Complaint are admitted. The allegations contained in the phrase in sentence 3 of paragraph 8D of the Complaint " Alcost all of this water originated from Project sources," are admitted. The remaining statements in sentence 3 of paragraph 8D of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Sentence 4 of paragraph 8D of the Complaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required. The congressional reports referred to in sentence 4 of paragraph BD of the Co plaint are the best evidence of what they provide. The allegations in sentence 5 of paragraph BD of the Complaint are admitted.
Sentences 6 and 7 of paragraph BD of the Complaint state conclusions of law to which no responso is required. The contract referred to in sentences 6 and 7 of paragraph 8D of the Co: plaint are the best ev.idence of what they provide. To the extent the statements in sentences 6 and 7 of paragraph BD of the Complaint are construed to be allegations, they are denied. Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the d
statements made in sentence 8 of paragrcph BD of the Co= plaint.
Sentence 9 of paraFraph BD of the Complaint states concluciens of g
law to which no response is required. Defendants deny the allegatier.:
cade in sentence 10 of paragraph BD of the Co: plaint. It is ad=itte' that defendants received a docu:ent from plaintiff that is dated March 27, 1980. The document is the best evidence of what it provides.
8E.
Paragraph BE of the Complaint states conclusions of law to which no response is required.
9.
All allegations in the Complaint not specifically adcitted are denied.
WHEREFORE, defendants request that the Court dismiss th'is action, and grant whatever other relief it deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, HYLES E. FLINT Chief, General Litigation Section
/
p<.u.?..nc/
fyANICE SIEGEL g VAttorney', Depart =ent of Justice Land and !!atural Resources Divisien Benjanin Franklin Station P. O. Eox 7415 20044-7415 Washin$ston, D. C.
(202) 33-4046 t
S D
9 8
O w
~ : : A: t 7" !""l:CE I, Janice Siegel, attorney for defendants, on lionday, March 22, ICS2, served each attorney of record with a copy of the foreEoing 1.nswer.
This was done by placing copies of the Answer in sealed envelopes, with first class postage prepaid, and then depositinE the envelopes in a United States Postal Service mailbox.
The envelopes were addressed as follows:
Philip J. Ehea, Esquire MARKS, S:!"A & UILES 114 West Ada.s, Suite 200 Phoenix, Ari:ona 85003 John J. !!cMackin. Jr., Esquire WILLIAMS & JEllSEN 1101 Conr.ecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 r
_.DV'.4&%'?!k JAt; ICE SIEGEL /
h/
/
4 e
h i
1 i
1
., - - -