WSP08807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 limiting the quantity; when water is scarce, priority controls the size of a claim. But if a stream is not fully allocated, or if the allocations violate valid Indian claims, a tribe could waive its Winters priority to a particular amount of water without limiting its total claim for all time to that amount. Judicial quantifications of Indian Winters claims have occurred in only a few cases. Arizona v. California quantified the water rights of the Colorado River Tribes at 1.0 million acre-feet a year.'9 In 1989, the Winters claims of the Shoshone and Northern ".., "-(.. Arapaho Tribes on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming were quantified at approximately 500,000 acre-feet a year.20 Currently 50 cases are pending that would quantify Indian Winters c1aims.21 Litigation is so costly--the Wyoming litigation has cost the state alone nearly $10 miJlion22--that significant pressure exists to negotiate :~...;' , ".,', settlements of Indian Winters rights. It is widely agreed that Indian claims have been legitimately quantified in five settlements, each subsequently ratified by or embodied ;;.' in federal legislation. Those settlements involve the Ak-Chin Indians, some members of the Papago, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa, all of Arizona, the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern Ute of Colorado, and several bands of Mission Indians in Southern :;"i . .' 19Arizona v. California 373 U.S. 546 at 596 and 600 (1963). 2OWvornin~ v. United States 109B S. Ct. 2994 (1989), affirming Big Horn River Adiudication 753 P. 2d 76 (Wyo. 1988). 21~ J. Echohawk, "Sources of Water IV: Tribal Water Rights," in Moving. the West's Water to New Uses: Winners and Losers (1990). 22See.e.~., MacKinnon, "Big Horn Water Adjudication Still Not Complete After Twelve Years," Casper Star-Tribune. Jan. 8, 1990, AI, co!. 1.