Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4251 <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br />United States v. City of Tuscon, (Civil No. 75-39 <br /> <br />D. Adz. 1975) 1 <br /> <br />New Mexico v. Amodt, 537 F.2d 1102 (lOth Cir. 1976) <br /> <br />cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1121; <br />Other water claims predating the establishment of the <br /> <br />reservation are predicated upon common law aboriginal property <br /> <br />concepts. <br /> <br />Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 <br /> <br />U.S. 661 (1974); <br /> <br />United States v. Ben Adair, (Civil No. 75-914 <br /> <br />D. Ore. Sept. 27,1979). <br /> <br />D. INDIAN WATER RIGHTS DISTINGUISHED FROM FEDERAL RESERVED <br />RIGHTS. <br /> <br />The reserved rights doctrine is applicable to federal <br /> <br />enclaves other than Indian reservations. <br /> <br />Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 600-601 (1963); <br /> <br />United States v. District Court for Eagle County, <br /> <br />401 U.S. 520 (1971); <br /> <br />Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976); <br /> <br />United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978); <br /> <br />Federal reserved rights for non-Indian encalves are limited <br /> <br />to water necessary for the specific primary purposes of the federal <br /> <br />lands - in contrast Indian reserved rights are to fulfill reser- <br /> <br />vat ions set aside as "permanent homelands" for the Indians. <br />