WSP03082

• File Number: 8064
• Description: Section "D" General Federal Issues/Policies - Indian Water Rights
• Date: 4/19/1985
• Title: Final Report of Tribal Negotiating Team to Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board of Fort Peck-Montana Water Compact
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

0620

Introduction

\

In the spring of 1979, all tribes in the State of
Montana becQme embroiled in water rights litigation with the
State and with private water users claiming rights under statp.
law. This carne about because the Montana legislature was
considering, and ultimately passed, legislation in 1979 to
subject all water rights within the State to adjudication in
the state court system. This state legislation included Indian
reserved rights.

Shortly before the legislation passed, the
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
supported by many other Montana tribesr persuaded the United
States Departments of Justice and the Interior to file several
cases in federal court to adjudicate all water rights on
streams in Montana where Indian reserved water rights exist.
After the State legislation passed, the State also sought to
initiate water adjudications in its court system. For the next
four years, the United States, the State and the Tribes
litigated the issue of whether the cases should proceed in
federal or state court. The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes were
very active in this litigation resisting state court
jurisdiction all the way to the Supreme Court. However, in
July 1983, the United States Supreme Court held that the
federal court cases should be stayed or dismissed and the state
court proceedings should go forward.

The Montana water legislation provided that the state
court proceedings should be stayed on any stream system where
an Indian tribe that claimed reserved rights had entered into
water Compact negotiations with the State. A Commission was
established by the State for the purpose of negotiating with
tribes.

In 1980, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort
Peck Reservation served notice on this Commission that the
Tribes were willing to negotiate. The Tribal Executive Board
was skeptical as to whether these negotiations would be
productive, but believed that efforts should be made to see if
negotiations could be successful before continuing litigation.

After more than four years of negotiations, a final
Compact has now been concluded. This Compact has recently been
submitted for ratification to the legislature of the State of
Montana. By this report, the tribal negotiating team submits
the Compact to .the Tribal Executive Board. The tribal
negotiating team recommends ratification.

. .
i
~J