Supreme Court’s ruling – June 2000
Except from the Supreme Court’s ruling which approves the proposed settlement agreement and acknowledges that the dispute is unresolved, the tribes are not granted water rights for additional lands, and California reserves it’s right to challenge the boundary dispute in the future (p14).

Click Here for Ruling

West Bank files Amicus Brief – December 1999
West Bank pleads with the Supreme Court to disallow the proposed settlement because it defers the boundary decision.

Click Here for Amicus Brief

Settlement Agreement between the U.S., CRIT, and the State of California – 1999
The agreement recognizes a continuation of the boundary dispute (Section IIC). The agreement also grants permission to the West Bank Homeowners Association to file an Amicus Brief with the Special Master (Section IIE). This copy shows clearly the signature of the CRIT tribal council chairman. Also pertinent to note that the tribes were not awarded any additional water rights for the disputed lands.

Click Here for Agreement

Special Master McGarr 1996 Opinion and Order No. 19
McGarr reiterated that the boundary was riparian 3 years later, ruled against the U.S., and ruled in favor of California

Click Here for Opinion and Order

West Bank Reply to CRIT’s opposition to the Motion to Intervene – October 1994

Click Here for Reply

West Bank Motion to Intervene – August 1994
West Bank Homeowners Association is granted permission to file a Motion to Intervene in the case. The court recognizes that the association’s member have an interest in the case.

Click Here for Motion

Special Master McGarr 1993 Opinion and Order No. 14
McGarr clearly found that the reservation boundary in the disputed area is riparian and not the fixed line proposed by the U.S.. He also establishes that the ’69 Secretarial Order was insufficient to establish the western boundary as proposed by the Dept of the Interior.

Click Here for Opinion and Order