Law Commons^™

Navajo Nation V. United States Department Of The Interior, Adam W. Johnson

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Navajo Nation sued the United States government alleging the government breached its trust obligation over the allocation of water rights in the Colorado River Basin. On remand, the district court denied the Navajo Nation leave to file its third amended complaint for futility, holding that the general trust relationship was insufficient to support the Nation’s breach of trust claim.

Water For Fish And Farms: An Examination Of Instream Flow Programs In Montana Using Spatially-Explicit Water Rights Data, Anna Leigh Crockett

Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers

The state-level institutions governing water use in the western United States have increasingly come under pressure and scrutiny related to their inability to navigate water use conflicts in recent decades. Rapid population growth and shifting public values towards leaving water instream for recreational and environmental purposes pose challenges to Montana water supplies which are predominantly allocated for irrigated agriculture. Additionally, while water scarcity and unpredictable availability are not new dilemmas in Montana, the rate at which climate change is driving shifts in the distribution, timing, and availability of water supplies is unprecedented. Current water policies may not be nimble enough …

City Of Helena V. Community Of Rimini, Molly M. Kelly

Public Land & Resources Law Review

After twenty years of adjudication, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the City of Helena’s right to 13.75 cfs from Ten Mile Creek, the city’s primary water source. The Court found a statute allowing cities and municipalities to exercise water rights that have gone through extended periods of nonuse did not need a retroactive clause.

United States V. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., Jonah P. Brown

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Application of water to a beneficial use is the decisive element of a perfected water right in Montana. The BLM claimed rights to five reservoirs and one natural pothole under Montana law. The agency did not own livestock, but instead made the water available to grazing permittees. In United States v. Barthelmess Ranch Corp., the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana Water Court’s holding that the BLM’s practice of making water available to others constituted a beneficial use and a perfected water right.

In Re Crow Water Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In re Crow Water Compact is the second appeal from the Crow Water Compact, agreed upon by the Settling Parties to distribute and manage water rights amongst themselves. The decision upholds the negotiated Compact for the second time, affirming the Montana Water Court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Settling Parties over objections by the Objectors and approving the Compact by a final order. This decision represents the last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana.

Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins

Public Land & Resources Law Review

This order from the Montana Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact over objections by non-tribal water users in Montana. Although the Objectors have appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, this order represents the next-to-last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana. The order provides a clear roadmap for other Montana tribes still seeking to achieve approval of a water compact by the Montana Water Court, and for objectors who would attempt to invalidate a compact in future proceedings.

Public Water, Private Rights: All Are Not Equally Protected When The State Allows Some To Divert Small Quantities Of Ground Water Outside The Permitting System, Carolyn A. Sime

Montana Law Review

Public Water, Private Rights: All Are Not Equally Protected When The State Allows Some To Divert Small Quantities Of Ground Water Outside The Permitting System

Hitching Our Wagon To A Dim Star: Why Outmoded Water Codes And "Public Interest" Review Cannot Protect The Public Trust In Western Water Law, Michelle Bryan Mudd

Faculty Law Review Articles

This article examines the interrelationship between the public trust and water rights as it is emerging in western states.

Part I of this article describes the traditional public trust principles that apply to waters, as well as the modern judicial trend of extending those principles to water use permitting in the West.

Focusing on an area of particular concern in water codes, Part II analyzes the risky implications of supplanting the public trust doctrine with existing public interest review provisions.

Finally, Part III advances a water use permitting framework that better fulfills the states' public trust responsibilities. Drawing on the …