Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000789 <br /> <br />ANIMAS - LaPLATA SOUTHERN UTE WATER RIGHTS <br />NO "WINTERS" RESERVATION FOR THE 1868 PRIORITY DATE <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />No. 7-66, 191 Cl. ct. 1, 423 F. 2d 346 (March 20, 1970) @ 371 where J. <br />Skelton writes, .. ... and, any subsequent confusion on the behalf of <br />changing government officials does not, and cannot, change the binding <br />legal effect of the Act of 1880." And @ 373, "...It should be noted <br />THAT THE APPELLEE SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE HAD NO OFFICIAL RESERVATION UNTIL <br />1938, when the residue of unsold and unallotted lands in Royce Area 617 <br />were restored to tribal ownership by order of the Secretary of <br />Interior." J. Skelton continues: "Prior to 1938, the only possessory <br />interest any of these Southern utes held in any lands was their <br />individual interest in their individual allotments." And, further, the <br />rest of the answer can be found conclusively, @ 704 in footnote [3] of <br />United States v. Southern Utes or Band of Indians, 28 L. Ed. 2d 695, 91 <br />S. ct. 1336, (April 26, 1971), where J. Brennan writes for the United <br />States Supreme Court, "... As we have said in this opinion, we find <br />no creation of a reservation for the Southern Utes in the Act of 1880, <br />nor can we find any words of cession in the Act of 1895." (see Arenas <br />v. United States, 64 S.ct. 1090, (May 22, 1944), 137 F.2d 199 9 Cir.). <br />THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE MODERN RESERVATION FOR THE <br />SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE FOR LANDS IN SOUTHWEST COLORADO IS NOT, ACCORDING TO <br />THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THE YEAR 1868. <br />From a different direction, but with investigation into some of <br />the same issues concerning Southwestern Colorado and Division 7, Water <br />Court, Colorado, there came a series of decisions, Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District v. United States (No. 74-940) and Mary Akin v. <br />United States ((No. 74-949) 47 L.Ed. 2d 483, 96 S. ct. 1236, March 24, <br />1976), in which the United States Supreme Court upheld a DISMISSAL of <br />an action brought by the United States for determination of water <br />rights for Southwestern Colorado in the Federal District Court "due to <br />the presence of concurrent state proceeding" (see also United States v. <br />Adair, 9 Cir., 723 F.2d 1394 (1983)). J. Brennan, also for the Court <br />in these latter cases, writes, dismissing the actions, "... the United <br />States, as trustee for certain Indian tribes and as owners of various <br />non-Indian governmental claims, brought an action ... to obtain <br />determination of its rights in certain waters and tributarie~." Akin <br />