My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC04506
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
16000-16999
>
WSPC04506
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:39:47 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 4:38:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8064
Description
Indian Water Rights
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Date
6/5/1991
Author
Lois Witte
Title
Negotiating and Indian Water Rights Settlement: The Colorado Ute Indian Experience
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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 />4137 <br /> <br />opinion which threatened the Animas-La Plata Project ("ALP"), the <br /> <br /> <br />lynch-pin of settlement. There is still hope that this decision <br /> <br /> <br />will be remedied; however, its appearance after six years of <br /> <br /> <br />negotiations is a lesson to all those who are about to engage on <br /> <br /> <br />the long and arduous process of negotiating Indian reserved <br /> <br /> <br />rights claims. <br /> <br />II. History of the Settlement <br />A. Federal Court Filings <br /> <br />Litigation commenced in 1972, when the United States <br />Department of Justice filed reserved water right claims on behalf <br />of the two Ute Indian Tribes in federal district court. The <br />State of Colorado and other parties intervened in this litiga- <br />tion, moving to dismiss on the grounds that, under the McCarran <br />Amendment (43 U.S.C. S 666), the Colorado District Court in and <br />for Water Division No.7 ("state water court") was the appropri- <br />ate court to quantify the Indian reserved right claims. After 4 <br />years of litigation the United States Supreme Court concurred and <br />ruled that: (1) the state water court was the appropriate forum <br />in which to litigate the Indian reserved water right claims; and <br />(2) the policy of the McCarran Amendment would be furthered if <br />quantification of the Indian reserved water right claims occurred <br />in state water court (Colorado River Water Conservation District <br /> <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.