Laserfiche WebLink
<br />14 <br /> <br />RECENT COURT DECISIONS SUGGEST SPECIFIC LIMITS, BEYOND WHICH <br />THE COURTS WILL NOT GO, IN VALIDATING INDIAN WATER CLAIMS AT <br />THE EXPENSE OF OTHER VESTED RIGHTS. THESE DECISIONS HAVE RESULTED <br />IN A MAJOR CHANGE OF COURSE FROM PREVIOUS FEDERAL CASELAW WHICH <br />CREATED MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES FOR THE STATES IN THEIR WATER MANAGE- <br />MENT. <br /> <br />THREE RECENT COURT CASES WOULD APPEAR TO MAKE THE NEGOTIATION <br />ROUTE MORE ATTRACTIVE TO THE TRIBES. IN ARIZONA Y CALIFORNIA, <br />THE' COURT ONLY LAST MARCH REFUSED TO REOPEN THE CASE TO CONSIDER <br />ADDITIONAL INDIAN CLAIMS NOT ASSERTED IN THE EARLIER 1964 DECREE. <br />THE SUPREME COURT ALSO REFUSED TO REOPEN THE PYRAMID LAKE CASE <br />(~~VA!?~ Y. UNITED STATES, JUNE, 19113) TO CONSIDER INDIAN WATER <br />RIGHTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD FAILED TO CLAIM IN NEGOTIATIONS <br />LEADING UP TO THE 1944 ORR DITCH DECREE. EVEN MORE RECENTLY, <br />THE SAN CARLOS DECISION (ARIZONA V SAN CARLOS APACHE T~UBE, JUNE, <br />1983) VALIDATED STATE JURISDICTION OF INDIAN RESERVED WATER CLAIMS <br />AS PART OF AN OVERALL STATE WATER ADJUDICATION UNDER THE MCCARRAN <br />AMENDMENT. <br /> <br />I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE TRIBES. BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE <br />I WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LITIGATION IS BECOMING A LESS <br />DESIRABLE ALTERNATIVE. THE TRIBES HAVE FAVORED FEDERAL COURTS OVER <br />STATE COURTS. NOW, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE APPEARING LESS <br />DEFERENTIAL TO THE TRIBES, AND THE STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN <br />BROADER JURISDICTION OVER THE TRIBES. OF COURSE, THE SUPREME <br /> <br />C-19 <br />