The Chemehuevi Reservation at Havasu Lake

How the reservation was created, what the Section 36 dispute is about, what the courts decided, and who enforces which laws on the California shore of Lake Havasu.

Research summary, not legal advice. Compiled November 6, 2026 from public court records, agency releases and press coverage. Where sources disagree, or a point could not be verified, the text says so. For a specific citation, arrest or land question, consult an attorney experienced in federal Indian law.

At a glance

TribeChemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi ReservationSouthernmost branch of the Southern Paiute (Nüwüwü)

LocationSan Bernardino County, CA, west shore of Lake HavasuAbout 40 miles southeast of Needles

CreatedFeb. 2, 1907Secretary of the Interior withdrawal order

SizeAbout 30,653 acres todayThe 1907 set-aside is given as 32,000 to 36,000 acres

WaterfrontAbout 25 to 30 milesOn Lake Havasu and the Colorado River (sources differ)

GovernmentNine-member elected Tribal CouncilHeadquartered at Havasu Lake; organized under the Indian Reorganization Act

EnrollmentAbout 700 to 1,250 membersSources disagree; about 300 to 345 live on the reservation

Water right11,340 acre-feet per yearColorado River water; ProPublica (2023) says about 97% goes unused

State jurisdictionPublic Law 280 (mandatory state)18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. § 1360

How the reservation was established

The reservation was created by executive action, not by treaty or statute. That matters later, because Congress has said only Congress can change the boundaries of an executive-order reservation. Click any year for details.

1853 California receives sections 16 and 36 of every township for schools
The grant excludes land "in the occupation or possession of any Indian tribe."
1891 Mission Indian Relief Act
Directs the selection of reservations for California Indians. They become valid when the Executive Branch approves them.
1895 Township survey approved
California later argued that this survey vested its title to Section 36.
1905–07 Kelsey investigation
Special Agent C.E. Kelsey recommends including the east half of Township 5 North, Range 24 East, which contains Section 36. He reports the Chemehuevi had occupied it "since primeval times."
Feb. 2, 1907 The reservation is created
The Secretary of the Interior withdraws the lands "from all form of settlement," creating the Chemehuevi Reservation.
1927 Only Congress can change the boundaries
Congress provides that executive-order reservation boundaries may be changed only by Act of Congress (25 U.S.C. § 398d).
1940–41 Parker Dam and Lake Havasu
An Act of Congress (54 Stat. 744; sources date it June 8 or July 8, 1940) authorizes taking reservation land for the reservoir. In 1941 Secretary Ickes designates the shoreline as a "freeboard" area. Lake Havasu floods about 7,000 to 8,000 acres. Sixteen miles of shoreline are run as public land and 5½ miles go into the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge.
1963 Arizona v. California
Quantifies the Tribe's Colorado River water right. The Supreme Court notes such reservations were "uniformly and universally treated as reservations."
1974 Shoreline returned
On Aug. 19, 1974, Interior announces that the Tribe holds equitable title to the shoreline, subject to a U.S. flowage easement. A Secretarial Order of Nov. 1, 1974 corrects the 1941 designation. The boundary with the wildlife refuge is set at a point north of Catfish Bay. This was not an outright restoration free of federal rights.
1985–86 State cigarette tax case
California State Board of Equalization v. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe: the U.S. Supreme Court allows California to make the Tribe collect state cigarette tax on sales to non-Indians.
2010 Federal trust patent leaves out Section 36
The Bureau of Land Management issues a trust patent to the Tribe. It excludes lands granted to California on July 10, 1895, which includes Section 36.
2016 HEARTH Act leasing rules
On Oct. 7, 2016, the BIA approves the Tribe's HEARTH Act leasing regulations, letting the Tribe approve certain leases of trust land itself.
2019 Ninth Circuit: Section 36 is in the reservation
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon. See Court cases.

Acreage, the date of the 1940 Act, and the flooded acreage vary between sources.

Section 36

A standard survey township (diagram, not a map). Sections are numbered back and forth from the northeast corner, so Section 36 is always the southeast square mile. Section 16 is the other school section. Hover or tap a square.

Each square is one section: about one mile on a side, 640 acres.

The disputed parcel is Section 36 of T5N R24E, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The east half of that township was included in the 1907 order. On BLM's survey lines, most of the Havasu Lake town grid falls inside Section 36.

Why it was disputed. Under the 1853 Act, California received every Section 36 as school land. San Bernardino County argued that Section 36 belonged to the state before 1907, so the 1907 order could not have put it in the reservation. If Section 36 were outside the reservation, it would not be Indian country, and deputies could enforce all state traffic law there against everyone, tribal members included.

The Tribe's answer. The 1853 grant excluded land occupied by an Indian tribe. The Kelsey report documents Chemehuevi occupation, and later federal actions treated the section as part of the reservation. Any state title from the 1895 survey was subject to the Tribe's right of possession.

Where it stands: the Ninth Circuit held in 2019 that Section 36 is part of the reservation and is Indian country. It expressly did not decide who holds title. Jurisdiction is settled; ownership of the ground is still open.

Section 36 on the ground

BLM's official survey grid drawn over USGS aerial imagery. Switch scales, toggle layers, and drag, scroll or pinch to zoom.

Loading map…

North is up. A section is about one mile square (640 acres). Imagery: USGS National Map, public domain.

What the map shows

Section 36 is where the town is. The residential grid of Havasu Lake, the main road through town and the community buildings fall inside it. The shoreline parks, marina and casino sit just east, in the next range (R25E).

The Census outline leaves it out. The Census Bureau's reservation line (cyan) follows the 2010 trust patent and wraps around Section 36 on three sides.

The courts put it back in. Turn on the "1907 order" layer to see the area the order covered. For jurisdiction, treat the orange square as inside the reservation, even though the federal maps show it outside.

BLM's lines are a GIS compilation, not a survey, and can be off by tens of feet. The Census line is for statistics only. For a specific lot, use a licensed surveyor's record or the BLM plat.

Who owns Section 36?

Short answer: on paper, the strongest claim to the underlying title is California's school-land grant, but no court has ever decided ownership. Both sides agree the 2010 federal trust patent left Section 36 out. They disagree about what California's title is worth. Choose a party to see its position.

State owns it outright

Under the 1853 Act, the State's title vested when the survey was approved on July 10, 1895. The Act of July 23, 1866 also "did quiet title" to sections 16 and 36 in the State. The Tribe never filed a claim under the 1851 California Land Claims Act, so it had "no rights of any kind in Section 36." The 2010 trust patent "did not include Section 36." Kelsey "mistakenly believed that the land had not been surveyed," so the 1907 order tried to set aside land the State already owned.

Defs.' Resp., C.D. Cal. Doc. 35, Mar. 9, 2016; Sheriff's Cert. Reply, No. 19-820

What this means in practice

The most defensible reading today: California holds record title to Section 36 as school land, and that title may be subject to an unextinguished tribal right of occupancy. The parcel is inside reservation boundaries and is Indian country no matter who owns it. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a), reservation land is Indian country "notwithstanding the issuance of any patent." So ownership does not change the jurisdiction rules below.

How it could be settled: a quiet-title action, or a deal such as a state school-land exchange or sale to the United States in trust. Tribal sovereign immunity complicates a suit between the State and the Tribe. No such suit, exchange, or State Lands Commission action was found on record.

To check the record: California State Lands Commission school-lands records for T5N R24E, SBBM, Section 36; the San Bernardino County Assessor's parcel map for the section; and the BLM Master Title Plat for the township.

Court cases

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon 9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019 · decided

No. 17-56791 · 2019 WL 3886168 · opinion by Judge Hurwitz · cert. denied, No. 19-820 (Mar. 9, 2020)

Facts. In 2015, San Bernardino County deputies cited four enrolled members for regulatory traffic violations: no valid registration, a suspended license, and no proof of financial responsibility. Two stops were on Section 36 and two elsewhere on the reservation. Some cars were impounded or towed. The Tribe and the four members sued the Sheriff and a deputy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Below. The district court first issued a preliminary injunction, then granted summary judgment to the County, holding Section 36 was outside the reservation.

Held Section 36 is within the reservation and is Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a). No Act of Congress ever diminished the reservation. The district court wrongly excluded the Kelsey report.
Held The individual members have a cause of action under § 1983 and can challenge their citations.
Held The Tribe itself cannot sue under § 1983 to vindicate sovereign rights, or as parens patriae for its members.
Left open Title to Section 36, and the deputies' immunity and other defenses on remand.

"California cannot enforce state law that regulates—but does not prohibit—tribal members' conduct inside a reservation."

Result. Affirmed as to the Tribe; vacated and remanded as to the four members. The Supreme Court denied review, so the ruling stands.

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Havasu Water Co. 9th Cir. No. 26-6335 · pending

Appeal filed Sept. 28, 2026, from C.D. Cal. No. 5:20-cv-00471-GW-KK

Havasu Water Company runs a pipeline across tribal trust land under an easement from a 1976 settlement. The Tribe says the easement ran for 30 years and has expired; the company says it was extended. The district court ordered ejectment on Jan. 8, 2026, and set June 15, 2026 as the deadline to move the pipeline. On Sept. 2, 2026, it held the company in civil contempt, with a $100-per-day sanction starting Aug. 27, 2026.

One secondary source reports the Ninth Circuit declined to stay the ejectment order during the appeal; this could not be confirmed from a court document. The opening brief is due Dec. 16, 2026, and briefing runs into 2027. Separately, a San Bernardino County Superior Court confirmed a state receiver for the utility in October 2026 at the CPUC's request, and EPA has overseen the water system under the Safe Drinking Water Act since Jan. 1, 2024.

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Jewell 9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2014 · decided

No. 12-56836

The Tribe had issued land-assignment deeds to members. The court held that the Nonintercourse Act (25 U.S.C. § 177) bars conveying tribal land without congressional approval, and upheld Interior's refusal to treat the deeds as valid. In practice, members and outsiders hold reservation land through federally approved leases or assignments, not deeds.

No published Ninth Circuit opinion on the Tribe from 2025 or 2026 was found.

Who enforces what

California is a mandatory Public Law 280 state. PL 280 gave the state criminal jurisdiction over Indian country, but not general regulatory power over tribes. Courts split state laws into criminal/prohibitory laws, which apply on the reservation, and civil/regulatory laws, which do not apply to tribal members there (California v. Cabazon Band, 1987). McMahon applied that test to the Vehicle Code.

Show rules for:

Situation on the reservation, including Section 36	Who has authority
Day-to-day policing	Sheriff The Tribe has no police department. The County Sheriff patrols the reservation, within the limits below. Tribal law is enforced through the Tribal Council and tribal processes.
Tribal member: serious crime (DUI, assault, theft, drugs)	State applies Sheriff and DA may arrest and prosecute under PL 280. The Tribe keeps concurrent authority under tribal law.
Tribal member: regulatory traffic matter (registration, license, proof of insurance)	State cannot enforce Settled for this reservation by McMahon. Tribal law governs.
Non-Indian visitor or resident	State applies State criminal and traffic law applies in full, enforced by the Sheriff. Tribes generally cannot criminally prosecute non-Indians (narrow exception under the Violence Against Women Act).
Tribe regulating non-members (leases, land use, conduct on trust land)	Tribe, with limits The Tribe can set conditions of entry and exclude trespassers. Its civil authority over non-members turns on federal case law (Montana and the power to exclude). A 1996 California AG opinion (No. 96-609) says a sheriff can enforce a tribal exclusion order only where the conduct is also state criminal trespass.
Leases and homes on trust land (Havasu Landing area)	Tribe and BIA A lease is valid only with Tribe and Secretary approval, or under the Tribe's 2016 HEARTH Act rules. The BIA has issued notices to vacate to occupants without valid leases in the Havasu Landing mobile home park; in 1997 the Ninth Circuit affirmed an ejectment of park residents.
Gaming (Havasu Landing Casino)	Tribe, compact, federal law Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Tribe's compact with California.
State taxes	Split The state cannot tax the Tribe or members on the reservation, but can require the Tribe to collect tax on sales to non-Indians (1985).
Drinking water and utilities	Federal and state EPA has had Safe Drinking Water Act primacy since 2024. The CPUC regulates Havasu Water's rates, and a state receiver now runs the utility. County Service Area 70 handles sanitation.
Federal crimes	Federal applies Federal laws of general application still apply. In PL 280 states, the Indian-country-specific statutes generally give way to state jurisdiction.

Practical upshot from McMahon: a deputy may stop and cite a non-Indian anywhere on the reservation for anything, and may arrest a tribal member for criminal/prohibitory offenses. A deputy may not cite or tow a tribal member for regulatory violations such as expired registration, and Section 36 is no exception.

Boundaries

Legal basis: the lands described in the Feb. 2, 1907 withdrawal order, including the east half of T5N R24E with Section 36. Only Congress can change them, and no Act of Congress has removed Section 36.
East: the Colorado River and Lake Havasu. The 1974 decision returned the shoreline freeboard lands to the Tribe, subject to the federal flowage easement.
North: the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, divided at a surveyed point north of Catfish Bay.
Across the lake: Lake Havasu City, Arizona, connected to Havasu Landing by the Tribe's ferry.
Within: Havasu Lake is an unincorporated community inside the reservation, with the tribal headquarters, the Havasu Landing Resort & Casino, the Chemehuevi Valley Airport and leased residential areas. Schools are in the Needles Unified School District.

No official boundary description beyond the township reference was found. For exact lines, get the BIA Land Title and Records Office plat or the BLM Master Title Plats for T4N–T6N, R23E–R25E, SBBM.

Not verified or still open

Final ownership of Section 36. California claims record title and the Tribe disputes it; no court has ruled.
Whether California ever sold any part of Section 36 to private buyers (State Lands Commission and County Assessor records).
Whether there is any written agreement between the Tribe and the Sheriff.
How the McMahon remand ended: settlement, damages, or a ruling on immunity.
Jurisdiction over boating on the lake surface (flowage easement, state line, refuge). Not researched.
The text of the Tribe's current law-and-order and exclusion codes. Best requested from the Tribe.
The outcome of Ninth Circuit No. 26-6335, still being briefed.

Sources

Show all 21 sources

Map data: BLM National PLSS (CadNSDI), Census TIGERweb (AIANNH 0585), USGS National Map imagery. Pulled November 7, 2026.