Opinion ID: 525111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 This case was originally filed in the Indian Claims Commission on August 14, 1951, as cause of action IV in Docket 236. The case was subdivided into Dockets 236-A through 236-N. Dockets 236-F and 236-I, the subject of the instant appeal, were never decided by the Commission. Eventually these dockets were transferred to the United States Court of Claims and then to the United States Claims Court. 1 They were consolidated for trial and are in this appeal. 3 The Gila River Indian Community (formerly the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior. 2 The Pima and Maricopa Indians had developed as an agricultural society which utilized irrigation methods using water from the Salt and Gila Rivers in Arizona. After the creation of the reservation in 1859 some of the river water was diverted by settlements upstream and thus hindered the Community's ability to irrigate the farms. In 1904 the United States undertook several irrigation projects in order to protect the Community's ability to irrigate at least the same number of acres as farmed prior to the upstream diversions. In connection with this effort the United States, acting as a fiduciary for the Community, also leased some of the reservation lands. 3 The Community brought this action claiming the United States breached its fiduciary duty of trust in its administration of these leases. There are six claims in Dockets 236-F and 236-I decided by the Claims Court and now appealed. All of the claims invoke the trust relationship. Issues on Appeal 4 1. Whether the trial court erred in holding the government did not breach its duty of trust in: 5 a. requiring lessees to contract with the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association (SRVWUA) for water to which the Community was already entitled; 6 b. requiring that lessees obtain irrigation water only from off-reservation sources; 7 c. failing to obtain reasonable cash rentals from lessees; 8 d. entering into successive development leases on the same tract of reservation land; 9 e. discouraging, delaying, and withholding approval of development leases. 10 2. Whether the trial court erred in deciding the issue of whether the government breached its duty under the fair and honorable dealings standard to protect the ground-water resources on the reservation.