You are here: Superior Court >General Stream Adjudication

What's New

Applications of the Salt River Project for Injunctive Relief
Respondents David R. and Kathy S. Henry, Michael C. and Judy L. Kasper, David J. and Elizabeth G. Latham-Scheier, and Richard E. and Michele D. Rogers
(see Court's orders May 7, 2009, September 4, 2009, March 4, 2010, August 16, 2010, January 25, 2011, July 21, 2011, October 31, 2011, February 13, 2012, August 14, 2012, February 21, 2013, August 29, 2013, and March 26, 2014)

• May 19, 2014
  Due from Respondents Kasper and Henry: Response to SRP's motion for summary judgment

In re Subflow Technical Report, San Pedro River Watershed, Contested Case No. W1-103
(see Court's orders August 24, 2010, December 8, 2010, December 16, 2010, February 1, 2011, April 4, 2011, May 17, 2011, July 6, 2011, August 1, 2011, February 21, 2012, April 4, 2012, May 8, 2012, August 23, 2012, October 12, 2012, October 24, 2012, and January 15, 2013, and Special Master's orders September 3, 2010, December 20, 2010, February 16, 2011 and report December 7, 2011)

• Decision Pending

In re Sands Group of Cases, Contested Case No. W1-11-19
(see Special Master's orders June 21, 2009 and July 25, 2011)

• Decision Pending

In re San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Contested Case No. W1-11-232
(see Special Master's orders May 24, 2010, July 14, 2010, January 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, June 7, 2012, September 27, 2012, December 13, 2012, January 24, 2013, May 29, 2013, August 7, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 13, 2013, and February 19, 2014)

• May 12, 2014
  Due from Other Parties: Expert reports
• June 16, 2014
  Due: Rebuttal reports to expert reports
• July 28, 2014 - August 1, 2014
  Expert witnesses to be made available for completion of depositions
• August 22, 2014
  Completion of discovery
• September 22, 2014
  Due: Motions
• October 20, 2014
  Due: Responses
• November 7, 2014
  Due: Replies
• Status Conference - To Be Announced

In re Fort Huachuca, Contested Case No. W1-11-605
(see Special Master's orders December 19, 2011, September 19, 2012, September 24, 2012, November 8, 2012, February 27, 2013, April 17, 2013, June 25, 2013, September 11, 2013, October 23, 2013, December 13, 2013, February 19, 2014, February 24, 2014, March 19, 2014, and April 1, 2014)

• April 16, 2014
  Due from United States: First interim production of documents
• Thirty Days after Issuance of Next Biological Opinion
  Due from United States: Production of deliberative documents of biological assessments
• August 1, 2014
  Due from United States: Second interim production of documents
• September 30, 2014
  Due from United States: Completion of production of documents
• October 21, 2014
  Due from United States: Privilege log of documents
• November 21, 2014 - 9:00 a.m. (MST)
  Conference
  Maricopa County Superior Court - courtroom to be announced

In re PWR 107 Claims, Contested Case No. W1-11-1174
(see Special Master's orders August 10, 2011, November 14, 2012, May 9, 2013, June 20, 2013, and December 2, 2013)

• Decision Pending

In re Redfield Canyon Wilderness Area, Contested Case No. W1-11-2664
(see Special Master's orders April 5, 2012, September 27, 2012, December 13, 2012, January 17, 2013, December 13, 2013, and February 19, 2014)

• Decision Pending

In re Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area, Contested Case No. W1-11-3342
(see Special Master's orders August 17, 2009, March 31, 2010, November 3, 2010, December 28, 2010, June 29, 2011, November 2, 2011, February 9, 2012, February 23, 2012, April 17, 2012, August 9, 2012, March 22, 2013, May 2, 2013, May 29, 2013, June 20, 2013, August 14, 2013, September 19, 2013, December 13, 2013, February 19, 2014, March 5, 2014, and April 3, 2014)

• May 9, 2014
  Due: Responses to motion of the United States for partial summary judgment
• May 30, 2014
  Due: Replies
• October 31, 2014
  Completion of discovery
• November 6, 2014 - 9:00 a.m. (MST)
  Conference
  Maricopa County Superior Court - courtroom to be announced

In re Powers Garden Administrative Site, Contested Case No. W1-11-3423
(see Special Master's orders March 24, 2011, December 7, 2011, September 27, 2012, December 13, 2012, January 14, 2013, and September 11, 2013)

• Decision Pending

In re Hopi Tribe Priority, Contested Case No. CV 6417-201
(see Special Master's orders September 8, 2008, October 31, 2008, January 12, 2009, March 19, 2009, September 2, 2009, February 3, 2010, May 12, 2010, October 15, 2010, November 9, 2010, January 4, 2011, April 21, 2011, August 15, 2011, September 13, 2011, October 26, 2011, February 10, 2012, March 12, 2012, June 28, 2012, September 24, 2012, October 29, 2012, April 24, 2013, and December 3, 2013)

• Decision Pending

• Updated Court approved mailing lists dated January 9, 2014, are posted. These lists contain all changes known to the office of the Special Master as of this date. Click here to see a listing of changes. The January 9, 2014 date will remain the same until the mailing lists are updated in July 2014, although changes will be regularly incorporated until then.

• Subflow Zone Map of the San Pedro River Watershed, Gila River Adjudication: The Court has reviewed the 26 objections and comments filed by claimants concerning the "Subflow Zone Delineation Report for the San Pedro River Watershed" prepared by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) pursuant to the Court's September 28, 2005, order. The report can be viewed on ADWR's web site on the Adjudications page under "Subflow Zone Delineation Report for the San Pedro River Watershed". The report, which includes numerous tables, color figures and maps, references, and appendices, shows the subflow zones along the San Pedro and Babocomari Rivers and Aravaipa Creek. The report is not a final determination of the location of the subflow zones in the San Pedro River Watershed, decisions that the Court will make.
  
  On March 15, 2011, the Court began hearing the objections of several claimants that present substantive legal and technical issues. The Court directed ADWR to submit a report by December 31, 2010, identifying the objections and comments with which ADWR agrees or does not take issue and providing information in response to a specific objection or comment. On December 8, 2010, the Court extended this deadline to January 31, 2011. On December 16, 2010, the Court invited comments from parties concerning the time allotment and procedures for the hearing. On February 1, 2011, the Court designated the March 15, 2011, hearing as a pretrial conference to determine the procedures to be used at a subsequent evidentiary hearing which shall be concluded prior to May 15, 2011, and requested a joint pretrial statement. On January 31, 2011, ADWR submitted its report responding to the objections and comments concerning the June 2009 report. The report consists of six chapters and numerous tables, figures, and appendices. ADWR grouped the objections into six categories and addressed each one.
  
  On April 4, 2011, the Court determined that a subsequent hearing to take testimony addressing further direction to ADWR on areas of concerns identified by the parties would be set prior to an evidentiary hearing and requested a revised pretrial statement. On May 17, 2011, the Court set an evidentiary hearing on August 24, 25, and 26, 2011. On July 19, 2011, the Court held a telephonic hearing to discuss a joint motion to continue the evidentiary hearing and a motion for clarification of the May 17, 2011, minute entry. Following the conference, the Court moved the evidentiary hearing to January 24, 25, and 26, 2012, allowed the submission of revised expert witness declarations and declarations by parties who had not initially filed them, and requested an updated joint pretrial statement.
  
  On December 15, 2011, the Court granted a request for a subpoena to call as a witness Mr. Richard T. Burtell, who formerly worked at ADWR. On January 19, 2012, the Court held a pretrial conference. On January 24, 25, and 26, 2012, the Court held an evidentiary hearing. The Court directed ADWR to prepare a report detailing the prospective work to be undertaken in an effort to delineate the subflow zone and requested proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with comments.
  
  In April, 2012, ADWR filed its report concerning the proposed methodology to be used to determine the extent of the subflow zone of the San Pedro River Watershed. Several parties filed comments. The Court set oral argument on November 8, 2012, to consider the comments. The newly appointed water judge reset the oral argument to January 10, 2013.
  
  On October 12, 2012, the Court issued its ruling concerning the evidentiary hearing held in January 2012. The Court provided guidance to ADWR concerning areas to be included within the subflow zone and the application of setbacks. ADWR was directed to prepare a revised report due on a date to be determined at an upcoming hearing. On January 15, 2013, the Court requested ADWR to prepare a revised Subflow Zone Delineation Report for the San Pedro River Watershed on or before April 1, 2014, consistent with the October 12, 2012, order. On April 1, 2014, ADWR filed a revised report.
  
  The Court referred to the Special Master the task of proceeding in the best manner to determine the remaining objections and comments. The Special Master held a conference on December 14, 2010, in Sierra Vista, to begin the process of resolving the objections referred to him. On December 20, 2010, the Special Master provided an opportunity for the objectors to supplement their objections, granted the motion of the San Carlos Apache Tribe to intervene, and added several parties to the Court approved mailing list of the case. On February 16, 2011, the Special Master informed the parties that the determination of certain objections would be deferred while other objections would be dismissed.

  On December 7, 2011, the Special Master filed a report with the Court recommending that all the objections referred to the Special Master be dismissed. On April 30, 2012, the Court approved and adopted the Special Master's report. The Court dismissed all the objections that the Special Master considered.

  Claimants may purchase copies of all of ADWR’s reports by calling 1-866-246-1414. The reports are available for download from the department's web site at http://www.azwater.gov/dwr (look under Programs - Adjudications - Subflow Technical Report, San Pedro River Watershed). The June 2009 report can be reviewed at the Benson, Bisbee Copper Queen, Mammoth, and Sierra Vista Public Libraries.
  
  
• San Pedro River Watershed Contested Cases on Federal Reserved Water Rights: Two motions have been filed that involve the continuing litigation of the four current contested cases in this watershed. On October 24, 2013, the United States filed with the Court a Motion for, and Memorandum in Support of, a Stay of Proceedings in the four contested cases in the San Pedro River Watershed that involve non-Indian federal reserved water rights (Stay Motion). The cases are In re San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, In re Fort Huachuca, In re Redfield Canyon Wilderness Area, and In re Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area.
  
  The Stay Motion requested the Court to stay all contested case proceedings until the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) completes the Subflow Report for the watershed, the Court approves ADWR’s identification of the subflow zone, and ADWR supplements the 1991 Final Hydrographic Survey Report for the San Pedro River Watershed to comply with the requirements of A.R.S. § 45-256. The Court denied the motion.
  
  On November 6, 2013, Freeport-McMoRan filed a Motion for Immediate Transfer of Contested Cases to the Trial Court. The motion requests that the Court immediately assume all further litigation of the four cases involving non-Indian federal reserved water rights in order to expedite the adjudication. SRP supports the motion and has submitted proposals for the transfer and subsequent proceedings in these cases. The United States and the Sierra Vista Parties oppose the motion.
  
  
• In re San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Gila River Adjudication: The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) filed a supplement to its Land Ownership Report for 26 parcels of land the United States acquired after November 18, 1988, the day the conservation area was established. The supplement provides a listing of the number of acres included in each deed and updates land ownership. The supplement shows the dates that the deeds were signed, the United States accepted title, and the United States acquired or reserved rights for each acquisition. The United States informed ADWR that the deed signing date is the date of formal incorporation of the land into the conservation area. A copy of the initial report in electronic or paper format can be obtained by calling ADWR at 1-866-246-1414. The report is available on the Department's web site on the Adjudications page under "Land Ownership Report for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA)."
  
  The steering committee for this case reported it had met twice in October 2010, but could not reach consensus on the future direction of the case because the United States was planning to amend its water rights claims for the conservation area. On April 15, 2011, the United States filed its third set of amended claims. The steering committee plans to meet to attempt to reach a consensus on future issues for resolution. On August 16, 2011, the Special Master issued an order concerning the compliance of the United States with a prior order.

  On April 9, 2012, the Special Master granted the request of ADWR to extend the time to file its next technical report. On May 31, 2012, ADWR filed its "Report Concerning Federal Reserved Water Rights Claims for SPRNCA." The report is available for download from the ADWR's web site. Claimants may purchase a copy of the report in paper and electronic versions by calling 1-866-246-1414.

  The Special Master has requested comments and positions concerning the use of the report in future proceedings. He identified several potential issues for consideration. A conference set on November 28, 2012, to consider these matters was vacated and reset to January 9, 2013. The Special Master gave parties sixty days to recommend issues for an evidentiary hearing concerning the reserved water rights claims of the United States.

  On May 29, 2013, the Special Master designated three issues for an evidentiary hearing concerning the quantification of the federal reserved water rights claims, ruled on several related issues, and set certain time lines. The Special Master adopted the time lines recommended by the Steering Committee for filing disclosure statements, commencing and completing discovery, filing expert reports, filing substantive motions including motions in limine on the issues designated for hearing, and scheduling a status conference. On October 17, 2013, the Special Master decided two issues set for briefing in the May 29, 2013, order.

  On November 27, 2013, the United States filed with the Special Master a Motion to Suspend Schedule and Request for Expedited Consideration. The motion requests that the Court suspend the litigation schedule and all deadlines in this case until a final ruling is made on the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings. The Special Master transferred this motion to the Court for ruling. On February 19, 2014, the Court denied the motion.

• In re Powers Garden Administrative Site, Gila River Adjudication: On May 14, 2013, the United States and the objectors filed a stipulation resolving the objections filed to the claims of the United States. The stipulation included two proposed abstracts of water rights. On September 11, 2013, the Special Master filed his report and lodged a proposed decree recommending the approval of the stipulation and abstracts of federal reserved water rights set forth in the report.
  
  
• In re Fort Huachuca, Gila River Adjudication: On September 7, 2011, the Court modified and adopted (nunc pro tunc) the Special Master's report. Following a telephonic conference held on December 8, 2011, the Special Master entered an order designating three issues for consideration in the next phase of this case. A schedule was set to address the issues. On March 1, 2012, the Special Master granted the request of the St. David Irrigation District and Babacomari Ranch Company, LLLP to intervene in the next phase of this case and participate as litigants. On November 8, 2012, the Special Master ruled on a discovery matter involving the United States and Freeport-McMoRan Corporation. On February 27, 2013, the Special Master granted a stipulated request to extend the time lines for completing discovery and exchanging expert reports. Following a conference held on June 11, 2013, the Special Master set new time lines for exchanging expert reports, completing discovery, filing prehearing motions, holding a conference, and scheduling an evidentiary hearing. On September 11, 2013, upon a joint stipulation, the Special Master issued a protective order concerning the ongoing discovery.
  
  On November 13, 2013, the United States filed with the Special Master a Motion for a Protective Order from all discovery, including the production of electronically stored information and other documents, submission of expert reports, and deposition of witnesses, until a final ruling is made on the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings. On November 27, 2013, the United States filed with the Special Master a Motion to Suspend Schedule and Request for Expedited Consideration. The motion requests that the Court suspend the litigation schedule and all deadlines in this case until a final ruling is made on the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings. The Special Master transferred to the Court both motions. On February 19, 2014, the Court denied both the motion for a protective order and for a stay.
  
  
• Streamlining the Adjudications: The Court is considering ways to improve the adjudications given the reduced levels of funding and staff of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). The process began in October 2012, when Court appointed committees submitted a report. Based upon the report, several parties requested a conference to address current and future litigation priorities in the Gila River Adjudication. A joint hearing of both adjudications was held on April 25, 2013. On July 2, 2013, the Court issued its order addressing several suggestions. The Court is considering various proposals concerning the Fort Huachuca contested case. ADWR reported that it believes the adjudication statutes are clear and allow ADWR to use its resources judiciously to provide technical assistance to the Court.
  
  
• In re Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area, Gila River Adjudication: The Special Master set an evidentiary hearing to consider five issues and requested a joint pre-hearing statement. On August 9, 2012, the Special Master set a pre-hearing schedule and clarified the scope of the technical assistance of the Arizona Department of Water Resources at this time. On March 22, 1013, the United States was granted additional time to file its expert reports, and the remaining time lines were modified. On May 2, 2013, the Special Master denied the motion of the United States for a temporary stay and requested a status report on the funding for the work of the federal expert witnesses. The Special Master temporarily suspended all pending future time lines. On June 20, 2013, the suspension was terminated and new time lines were set. On August 14, 2013, the Special Master granted ADWR's request for additional time until February 14, 2014, to submit previously requested information. On September 19, 2013, upon a joint stipulation, the Special Master issued a protective order concerning the ongoing discovery.
  
  On November 13, 2013, the United States filed with the Special Master a Motion for a Protective Order from all discovery, including the deposition of witnesses, until a final ruling is made on the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings. On November 27, 2013, the United States filed with the Special Master a Motion to Suspend Schedule and Request for Expedited Consideration. The motion requests that the Court suspend the litigation schedule and all deadlines in this case until a final ruling is made on the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings. The Special Master transferred to the Court both motions. On February 19, 2014, the Court denied both the motion for a protective order and for a stay.
  
  On April 3, 2014, the Special Master set timelines for completing discovery and filing responses and replies concerning a motion of the United States for partial summary judgment.
  
  
• In re PWR 107 Claims, Gila River Adjudication: The negotiations of the parties to try to resolve this case have apparently reached an end. On June 20, 2013, the Special Master gave the United States and the San Carlos Apache Tribe ninety days to try to reach a mutual resolution and set a schedule to implement an agreement if one is reached. The parties were unable to meet this deadline. On December 2, 2013, the Special Master requested a status report on settlement.
  
  
• In re Hopi Tribe Priority, Little Colorado River Adjudication: On April 24, 2013, the Special Master filed his report with the Court. The Special Master found that the Hopi Tribe holds water rights with a priority of time immemorial only in the area within Land Management District 6 and not on other tribal lands; the Hopi Tribe does not hold water rights with a priority date of 1848 as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as the treaty did not create or establish water rights; the Hopi Tribe holds an implied reserved water right with a priority of December 16, 1882, to the Hopi Partitioned Lands within the 1882 Executive Order Reservation and to Moenkopi Island with a priority of June 14, 1934. The Hopi Tribe's aboriginal water rights were incidents of aboriginal title, and the extinguishment of the Hopi Tribe's aboriginal title to certain lands, as determined by the Commission, terminated aboriginal water rights to those lands. No findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations were made regarding the priority of water rights for the Hopi Industrial Park and the Aja, Clear Creek, Drye, and Hart Ranches.
  
  The Hopi Tribe is precluded from asserting claims of aboriginal title that were litigated and determined by the Indian Claims Commission, but is not precluded from asserting a reserved water right. Non-parties to the prior litigation before the Indian Claims Commission and partition cases may assert claim and issue preclusion. The settlement of the Hopi Tribe's action before the Indian Claims Commission was an accord and satisfaction of claims to aboriginal title to land but not water rights. The issue whether the Hopi Tribe can assert a senior priority to water resources shared with the Navajo Nation cannot be resolved by summary judgment.
  
  Objections and responses have been filed. The Arizona Department of Water Resources filed comments indicating that it does not have sufficient resources to investigate the claimed water rights for the four ranches described in the Special Master's report.
  
  The Court has set a hearing on January 17, 2014, to consider the objections and comments to the report. The Court allowed the Yavapai-Apache Nation and Pascua Yaqui Tribe to participate as “friends of the Court.”
  
  
• In re Redfield Canyon Wilderness Area, Gila River Adjudication: The Special Master issued an order initiating a new contested case to resolve the objections arising from the Final Hydrographic Survey Report for the San Pedro River Watershed concerning the Redfield Canyon Wilderness Area. The order designates seven issues for initial briefing, and sets times for disclosure statements, discovery, and briefing. On June 27, 2012, the Special Master granted the request of the Arizona Game and Fish Department to withdraw as a party and added lessee The Nature Conservancy as a litigant. On July 26, 2012, the Special Master allowed Bayless & Berkalew Company to intervene and added Brown & Brown Law Offices, P. C. to the mailing list. A conference set on November 28, 2012, to review this case and hear oral argument on a pending motion of the United States was vacated and reset to January 9, 2013. On January 17, 2013, the Special Master denied the motion of the United States to stay and set new time lines for the continuation of the briefing.
  
  On November 27, 2013, the United States filed with the Special Master a Motion to Suspend Schedule and Request for Expedited Consideration. The motion requests that the Court suspend the litigation schedule and all deadlines in this case until a final ruling is made on the United States’ motion to stay all proceedings. The Special Master transferred this motion to the Court for ruling. On February 19, 2014, the Court denied the motion.
  
  
• In re Applications of Salt River Project for Injunctive Relief, Gila River Adjudication: The applications involve several parties in the Verde River Watershed. The Court set a schedule leading to an evidentiary hearing concerning Respondents Kovacovich Investment, L. P., Wiertzema Family Trust, and NBJ Ranch L. P. On April 15, 2009, the Court heard oral argument on motions for summary judgment filed by the respondents. The Court denied the motions. Because the parties need more time to present evidence, the Court postponed until early October the evidentiary hearing set in late April and added three days. The hearing was held on October 5-7, 2009. On March 25, 2010, the Court issued its ruling granting the Salt River Project injunctive relief, but requiring SRP to post a $75,000.00 cash bond. The Court directed SRP to file a proposed form of judgment, and NBJ Ranch L.P. may object to it. The parties requested permission to engage in negotiations to determine if a mutual agreement can be reached. The Court set a telephonic conference on June 9, 2011, to review the status of negotiations. On June 9, 2011, the Court granted the stipulated dismissal with prejudice of SRP's application for injunctive relief against NBJ Ranch L. P. and vacated the telephonic conference. The dismissal ends this matter.
  
  The Wiertzema Family Trust renewed its motion to dismiss based on new information obtained. The Court granted the motion. The dismissal ends this matter. The Wiertzema Family Trust requested an award of attorney's fees, expert witness and consultant fees. The Salt River Project opposed the motion. The Court requested memoranda from counsel on four questions propounded by the Court and set a hearing. On June 21, 2010, the Court held the hearing after which it requested supplemental briefing. On October 21, 2010, the Court denied the fees award requests of the Wiertzema Family Trust.
  
  On January 19, 2010, the Court granted the stipulated dismissal without prejudice of the Salt River Project's application for injunctive relief against Kovacovich Investment Ltd. Partnership.
  
  On April 24, 2009, the Court held a telephonic scheduling conference in the matters involving Respondents Henry, Kasper, Largent, Ray, and Stryker. The Court previously requested joint comprehensive pretrial memoranda from the parties. SRP and Respondents Kasper and Stryker filed a joint pretrial memorandum and proposed scheduling order. The other parties did not attend the conference. A telephonic conference was held on July 16, 2009. The Court ordered the parties to file joint pretrial orders on or before August 14, 2009, set a pretrial conference on March 16, 2010, and an evidentiary hearing on March 30 and 31, 2010. On February 2, 2010, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss with prejudice SRP's application against Respondents Largent concluding this portion of the litigation. On March 4, 2010, the Court vacated the pretrial conference and evidentiary hearing and granted Respondents Henry, Kasper, Ray, and Stryker until May 8, 2010, to file their response to SRP's motion for summary judgment.
  
  On August 16, 2010, at the request of the parties, the Court extended this date to January 24, 2011. On January 25, 2011, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to July 15, 2011. On July 21, 2011, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to October 17, 2011. On October 31, 2011, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to January 17, 2012. On February 13, 2012, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to August 20, 2012. On August 14, 2012, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to February 20, 2013. On February 21, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to August 23, 2013. On August 29, 2013, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to February 24, 2014. On March 26, 2014, at the request of the parties, the Court extended the date to May 19, 2014.
  
  On March 26, 2014, the Court granted the stipulated dismissal without prejudice of the Salt River Project’s application for injunctive relief against Chester-Campbell, L.L.C., and Linda S. and Paul R. Robinson.
  
  
• In re Sands Group of Cases, Gila River Adjudication: The Special Master requested a report from the Arizona Department of Water Resources concerning guidance the department may need to complete its assignments in this contested case. Several parties filed comments concerning the report. The Special Master granted the request of Freeport-McMoRan Corporation to be placed on the Court approved mailing list.
  
  
• Catalog of Non-Exempt Registered Wells, Little Colorado River Adjudication: On December 18, 2009, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) released a catalog of non-exempt registered wells located in the Eastern Little Colorado River Basin. ADWR compiled the catalog in accordance with the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement approved by the Court on November 27, 2006. The purpose of the catalog is to identify and verify existing, non-exempt registered wells in the area by registration number, legal description, and owner. ADWR prepared and distributed a preliminary catalog in December 2008 and received comments from several parties. This final catalog addresses comments on the preliminary and includes results from a voluntary well registration program. The settlement agreement recognizes that there could be "existing wells that are not currently registered" in the project area and specifies that a voluntary well registration program be created to allow for registration of these wells and their inclusion into the catalog. The settlement agreement allows the catalog to be supplemented with existing wells that were omitted, and well owners can object to the Court that the catalog contains an improper description of a well they own. The Zuni Tribe and United States can also object that well descriptions are inaccurate. The Court will resolve any objections as to the accuracy of the catalog. Copies of the catalog are available for review at several public locations and on ADWR's website site at www.azwater.gov (see Hot Topics).
  
  
• Final Hydrographic Survey Report for the Hopi Indian Reservation: The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) has filed a Preliminary HSR for the Hopi Reservation. The report concerns the water rights claimed by the Hopi Tribe and the United States on the Tribe's behalf for use on the Hopi Reservation. Copies of the report are available for review at several public locations, and a copy can be purchased in paper form or electronic DVD format. The report is available on ADWR's Internet site. On March 9, 2009, the Court granted the joint request of the United States and the Hopi Tribe to extend the deadline for filing comments to the Hopi Reservation Preliminary Hydrographic Survey Report to June 30, 2009. ADWR anticipates filing the Final HSR no later and perhaps earlier than September 1, 2015.
  
  
• Online Archive of Indian Water Rights Settlements: The University of Idaho College of Law is creating an online archive of the 25 currently adopted Indian water rights settlements. Professor Barbara Cosens is directing the project. Representatives of the project may contact counsel and other interested persons to obtain information or copies of agreements. The Special Master encourages all to provide assistance to the extent they can because this project promises to be very helpful in future years.
  
  
• Keeping the Arizona Department of Water Resources updated on your mailing address is very important! The Special Master has updated a letter that the Arizona Association of Realtors first posted on its Web site in May, 2001.

return to top