Laserfiche WebLink
<br />opinion which threatened the Animas-La Plata Project ("ALP"), the <br /> <br />lynch-pin of settlement. There is still hope that this decision <br /> <br />will be remedied; however, its appearance after six years of <br /> <br />negatiatians is a lessan to all thase who are about to engage on <br /> <br /> <br />the long and arduous pracess of negotiating Indian reserved <br /> <br /> <br />rights claims. <br /> <br />II. History of the Settlement <br />A. Federal Court Filings <br /> <br />'[ <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />:~ <br /> <br />Litigation commenced in 1972, when the United States <br /> <br />Department of Justice filed reserved water right claims on behalf <br /> ,-<, <br />of the two Ute Indian Tribes in federal district The " <br />court. <br />State af Colorado and other parties intervened in this litiga- :.' <br /> <br />tion, moving to dismiss on the graunds that, under the McCarran <br /> <br />Amendment (43 U.S.C. S 666), the Colorado District Court in and <br /> <br />for Water Division No.7 ("state water court") was the appropri- <br /> <br /> <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 /> <br />in which to litigate the Indian reserved water right claims; and <br /> <br />(2) the policy of the McCarran Amendment wauld be furthered if <br /> <br />quantification of the Indian reserved water right claims occurred <br /> <br />in state water court (Colorado River Water Conservation District <br /> <br />-)- <br />