My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12538
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSPC12538
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:46 PM
Creation date
8/2/2007 2:40:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8064.100
Description
Indian Water Rights - Ute Tribes
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/14/1998
Author
Alison Maynard
Title
Legal Analysis of Issues - RE-Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 1998-Pine River Decree-1986 Settlement Agreement - 06-14-98
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />003731 <br /> <br />Mr. Phil Doe <br />Page 3 <br />June 14, 1998 <br /> <br />Where the grantor conveys all of his interest without qualification, his entire right is <br />transferred, since the word "interest" is regarded as the broadest term applicable to claims <br />in and on real property, and a like rule is applicable to a conveyance of "all right, title, <br />and interest. " <br /> <br />26 C.J.S. Deeds, ~104(c), at 899 (1956) (footnotes omitted). A water right is a property right. <br />Matter of MC\)', 756 P.2d 362, 370 (Colo. 1988); Concerninl:' Awlication for Water Rights of <br />Turkey Canon Ranch LLC, 937 P.2d 739, 748 (Colo. 1997). Moreover, because a reserved wa- <br />ter right is measured exclusively by the "practicably irrigable acreage" of the reservation, not by <br />the Indians' "reasonably foreseeable needs," Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 600, 601, 83 <br />S.Ct. 1468, 1498 (1963), as soon as there was no longer any acreage to irrigate, there was no <br />longer a reserved water right. The Supreme Court in Winters remarked, "The power of the <br />government to reserve the waters and exempt them from appropriation under the state laws is not <br />denied, and could not be." 28 S.Ct. at 212. Similarly, the power of the government to <br />extinguish a reservation cannot be denied; and, in this very case, that the government did just <br />that has been expressly recognized by the United States Supreme Court. <br /> <br />II. ISSUE: Do the Southern Utes have a right to monetary compensation for the <br />extinguishment or -taking- of their 1868 reservation, including reserved water rights? <br /> <br />CONCLUSION: No. They have. already been fully compensated for the loss of the <br />reservation, and the Supreme Court has expressly held that the consent judgments which <br />provided for that compensation are m judicata barring any further claims based on that <br />loss. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION: In 1950, the Southern Utes entered into a settlement with the United States go- <br />vernment for all property interests which were taken from them in 1880 and 1895. They signed <br />a release of all claims, and the release and settlement were held by the United States Supreme <br />Court in United States v. Southern Utes or Band of Indians to constitute m.s judicata as to all <br />claims for compensation for the loss of their property interests which were, or could have been, <br />raised by the Utes in connection with the extinguishment of their reservation. The Supreme <br />Court held that they have already been fully compensated for this loss. <br /> <br />The reasoning and history behind the Supreme Court's decision begins with the creation of the <br />reservation itself, when the Confederated Bands of Utes, composed of the Uncompahgre Utes, <br />the White River Utes, and the Southern Utes, in the latter half of the 19th century exchanged <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.