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 />000732 <br /> <br />Mr. Phil Doe <br />Page 5 <br />June 14, 1998 <br /> <br />ticularly given that they had continued to occupy Royce Area 617. The Utes argued that there <br />were such interests or rights for which they had not been compensated by virtue of the 1950 <br />consent decree. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that there was nothing which survived <br />the 1880 cession the subsequent "taking" of which still remained to be compensated. The Court <br />held that the 1950 consent judgments were res judicata as to compensation to the Utes for the <br />taking of all property from the 1868 reservation which was "ceded to the defendant by the Act <br />of June 15, 1880"--and that there were no other cessions. <br /> <br />Because, again, the "right, title, interest, estate, claims, and demands of whatsoever nature in <br />and to the lands in western Colorado" ceded by the Utes to the United States government in 1880 <br />includes any and all Winters water rights, and the Supreme Court has held that the Utes have <br />been fully compensated for all these interests, they are barred by res judicata from claiming a <br />reserved water right with a priority of 1868 now. <br /> <br />III. ISSUE: May individual Southern Ute Indians, as opposed to the tribe itself, claim <br />any reserved water rights with an 1868 priority now? <br /> <br />CONCLUSION: No. However, pursuant to the -Pine River decree, - a stipulated decree <br />entered October 25, 1930, individual Indian and their non-Indian successors may have an <br />allocation of water which has already been quantified for use on allotted lands within the <br />former Southern Ute Reservation, to which an 1868 priority was assigned. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION: Indian allottees are entitled to "use some portion of tribal waters essential for <br />cultivation of their reservation." United States v. Powers et aI., 305 U.S. 527, 59 s.Ct. 344, <br />-. 346-(t?~: --rnis"right-w--iUl~individ-dat-'3hare-intribal- water is iWt.the-same thing as. an. en- <br />titlement to a reserved water right for the individual allotment. Grey v. United States, 21 Cl. <br />Ct. 285 (1990). In the present case, as discussed, there is no "tribal water" relating to the 1868 <br />reservation, since that reservation was extinguished. Yet, in 1930, whether or not there was any <br />. legal obligation to do so, the United States, on behalf of the Southern Utes, stipulated to a decree <br />for water rights from the Pine River in an amount sufficient to irrigate allotments previously <br />made, as well as lands held by it in trust for future allotments, and those water rights, by <br />stipulation, bear a priority of July 25, 1868. <br /> <br />Effect of the Pine River decree. <br /> <br />United States of America v. The Morrison Consolidated Ditch Co.. et aI., case no. 7736 (D. <br />Colo. Oct. 25, 1930 ("the Pine River decree"), was stipulated to between the United States <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.