WSPP00108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , 0' . . - , . Justice filed reserved water right claims on behalf of the two Ute Indian Tribes in federal district court. The State of Colo- rado and other parties intervened in the federal court litigation and moved to dismiss this litigation based on the argument that, under the McCarran Amendment, 2/ the Colorado District Court for Water Division No.7 ("state water court") was the appropriate court to quantify the Indian reserved rights claims.3/ In 1976, the united States Supreme Court agreed and ruled that: (1) the state water court was the appropriate forum in which to litigate the Indian reserved water right claims; and (2) the policy of the McCarran Amendment would be furthered if quantification of the Indian reserved water right claims occurred in state water court.!/ In 1976, the federal government, on behalf of the Ute Moun- tain ute and Southern Ute Indian Tribes, filed reserved water right claims in state water court for a substantial quantity of water from over twenty five stream systems.~/ In April 1985, the parties formally convened negotiation of these claims. Present were the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe; the United St3tes Departments of the Interior and Justice; the States of Colorado and New Mexico; the communities of Durango, Cortez, and Mancos, other smaller southwest Colorado communities, and some northwest New Mexico communities; several water conservancy districts and ditch companies; many farmers and ranchers; and various other individuals and groups with an inter- est in the litigation. Each participant brought specific requirements to the nego- tiating table which had to be met if the negotiations were to be successful. The State of Colorado took the position that it could not neqotiate away the vested pro?ertv riqhts held bv decreed holders of state appropriative water riqhts; it was interested in protecting existing economies and required a stan- dard of "no injury" to existing uses. In addition, after liti- gating four years and preserving the ability to have Indian reserved water right claims adjudicated in state water court pur- suant to the McCarran Amendment, Colorado did not want to agree to a proceeding in which the Indian reserved water rights would be quantified by Congress or in a federal court. The tribes, in turn, wanted wet water, not paper water rights: it was not enough to quantifv the reserved water right claims if the tribes were to have no money or way to put the water to use. The need for usable water made the off-reservation marketing of tribal water central to the tribes, as the freedom to transfer and use the water was viewed as essential to the ability to make economic and full use of the tribal resource. -3- 0196