Here.
Includes a brief quote from Vernon Roote, Saugeen First Nation Chief.
Here.
Includes a brief quote from Vernon Roote, Saugeen First Nation Chief.
Amy Cordalis and Daniel Cordalis have published “Indian Water Rights: How Arizona v. California Left an Unwanted Cloud over the Colorado River Basin” in the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law.
The abstract:
The Colorado River is one of the most important rivers in the world. The river’s 1,400-mile journey from the Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez takes on waters from seven states and from the reservations of twenty-eight Indian tribes along the way, 244,000 square miles of river basin in all. The Colorado River is also heavily managed: Its waters are allocated through a complex body of laws collectively referred to as the “Law of the River,” which includes an international treaty, two interstate water compacts, numerous federal and state statutes, and more than a dozen Indian water rights settlements. For thousands of years before the Law of the River, however, American Indians lived and irrigated within the Colorado River Basin, making due with its characteristically seasonal rains and difficult growing conditions. Today, in a cruel but all-too common twist for tribes, twelve of the basin’s twenty-eight tribes have not had their water rights completely quantified, leaving many of the basin’s oldest inhabitants without a legally secure source of water. This begs the question of how the Law of the River developed such that the Colorado River is already over-allocated but Indian water rights are to a large extent unaccounted for, and tribes—occupying and using water in the basin since time immemorial—are left struggling for whatever remaining drops they can squeeze out of the basin. And, perhaps more to the point, the question arises how Arizona v. California recognized this exact issue in the Lower Colorado River Basin and could not to fully resolve it. This article finally takes the position that tribes, the states, and the federal government must work together to settle Indian water rights claims to provide certainty to all Colorado River basin water users amidst growing undertainty from polulation growth and climate change.
Here’s the BBC article.
Here:
The Promise of Indian Water Leasing: An Examination of One Tribe’s Success at Brokering Its Surplus Water Rights
Justin Nyberg 181
After reaching water rights settlements, a number of Native American tribes find themselves with rights to more water than their reservations or pueblo communities presently need. As climate change exacerbates drought conditions in the western United States and demand for water increases, some tribes have leased these surplus water rights to public and private, non-Indian, users. Theoretically, this could be a boon for tribes, although the extent of the economic impact of water leasing is difficult to assess without an examination of each individual water lease. This paper attempts to illustrate the economic impact of Indian water rights leasing anecdotally, by examining the leasing efforts of one particularly successful tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Nation in northern New Mexico.
Here are the new materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):
2015-01-09 – Dkt 104 – US Reply in Support of Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment
2015-01-09 – Dkt 105 – CVWD Reply to Opp by ACBCI to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment
2015-01-09 – Dkt 106 – CVWD Reply to Opp vy US to CVWD Phase I Motion for Summary Judgment
2015-01-09 – Dkt 107 – DWA Reply to ACBCI Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment
2015-01-09 – Dkt 108 – DWA Reply to US Opposition to DWA Motion for Summary Judgment
Response briefs are here.
Opening briefs are here.
Here.
Jason Robison has posted his forthcoming paper, “Wyoming’s Big Horn General Stream Adjudication, 1977-2014,” on SSRN. It is forthcoming in the Wyoming Law Review.
An excerpt:
Aimed at addressing water rights in the State of Wyoming’s portion of the Wind/Big Horn Basin, including those held by the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation, the Big Horn general stream adjudication is currently poised to draw to a close after 37 years. This article offers an overview of this complex and often contentious legal proceeding, relying mainly on primary sources contained in a digital archive, and situates the adjudication within the broader context of western water law.
You must be logged in to post a comment.