Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'.'0535 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />of water of a river system or other source," but it also permitted the <br /> <br />waiver of any right by the United States "to plead that the State laws are <br />inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of <br />its sovereignty." The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. <br /> <br />District Court for Eag Ie County (401 U. S. 520 (1971) l. appl ied the <br /> <br />McCarran Amendment in its ruling on a challenge to federal jurisdiction in <br /> <br />a water rights case, one not directly involving Indian claimants. What <br /> <br />Eagle County did was to establish precedent for use of state courts as the <br /> <br />forum for disputes involving water rights, even while acknowledging that <br /> <br />both federal and state courts could assert jurisdiction. <br /> <br />I t set the stage for the major decision, five years later in Colorado <br /> <br />River Water Conservation District v. .United States (424 U.S. 800 (1976)), <br /> <br />that did involve the water rights of Indians. In this case, which con- <br /> <br />cerned the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian <br /> <br />Tribe, the U. S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Government's con- <br /> <br />sent to state jurisdiction for the purpose of determining water rights did <br /> <br />not in any way imperil the rights of the Indians and did not represent a <br /> <br />breach of the Government's obligation as trustee to them. Despite the fact <br /> <br />that states like Colorado, Washington, and Montana have fairly comprehen- <br /> <br />sive and established systems for administering water rights, Indian tribes <br /> <br />in general have greater confidence in the ability and willingness of federal <br /> <br />courts to adjudicate their claims equitably, as compared to state forums. <br />The problem with state courts in water rights disputes, from the <br />point of view of the Indians, is that these courts in the preponderance of <br /> <br />cases are called upon to settle issues involving non-Indians, based on <br /> <br />established principles of prior appropriation. Yet, as pointed out by <br />Colorado Attorney General Duane Woodard at the Second Annual Water Use <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />T-e':" <br /> <br />:~~--;.. <br /> <br />.-..:~--._': ---- <br />