Law Commons^™

Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement Of Dec. 19, 1986, State Of Colorado, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, United States Department Of The Interior, United States Department Of Justice, Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Florida Water Conservancy District, Mancos Water Conservancy District, Southwestern Water Conservation District, City Of Durango, Town Of Pagosa Springs, Florida Farmers Ditch Company, Florida Canal Company, Fairfield Communities, Inc.

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Final Settlement Agreement (Dec. 10, 1986) The Ute Mountain Tribe is entitled to: water from the Dolores Project for municipal/industrial, irrigation and fish/wildlife purposes & development with a priority date of 1868. Repayment of construction costs allocable to irrigation purposes shall be deferred; water from the Animas-La Plata Project for municipal/ industrial and for irrigation with a priority date of 1868; water from the Mancos River for irrigation; water from the Navajo Wash for irrigation; and water from the San Juan River. The Southern Ute Tribe is entitled to: water from the …

Water Resources Development Act Of 1986, United States Congress, Us House Of Representatives

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This excerpt from a report from the House Committee of Conference dated October 17, 1986, was written to accompany United States (US) House Resolution 6, also known as the “Water Resources Development Act of 1986.” US House Resolution 6 authorizes development, flood control, and water protection measures for several projects across the US. This report suggests amendments to US House Resolution 6. This excerpt highlights a section of the report entitled “Garrison Land Transfer” which stipulates that 136 acres of land be held in trust by the United States for the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation in …

Tribal Court Jurisdiction Over Civil Disputes Involving Non-Indians: An Assessment Of National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. V. Crow Tribe Of Indians And A Proposal For Reform, Allison M. Dussias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note examines the issue of tribal court jurisdiction over cases in which both Indians and non-Indians are parties and discusses the Supreme Court's most recent statement on the issue. In National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, an Indian minor brought a personal injury action in Crow Tribal Court against a Montana school district operating a school on state-owned land within the Crow Reservation. The Supreme Court concluded that the tribal court itself should first determine whether it has the power to exercise civil subject-matter jurisdiction over non-Indian property owners in a tort case. Defendants …

Appellee Tribes' Supplemental Brief Re White Mountain Apache Tribe V. Williams

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 85-3908, 85-4009 (813 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1987))

No abstract provided.

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 9, Aug. 1986, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

No abstract provided.

The Determination Of Title To Submerged Lands On Indian Reservation, Rick Best

Washington Law Review

The treatment of submerged lands within Indian reservations provides a classic example of the Indian rights gap. Two possible owners may claim such lands under navigable water: the tribe or one of the several states. Substantial legal and economic significance attaches to ownership. The title may determine fishing rights as well as potentially lucrative mineral rights to gas and oil deposits. When a river is rerouted, the uncovered land may become a valuable recreational or commercial waterfront. Title can also determine criminal jurisdiction for acts taking place on the water. States rely on the equal footing doctrine to claim title …

An Act To Implement Certain Recommendations Made Pursuant To Public Law 98-360, United States Congress

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This public law, also known as "The Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986" or United States (US) Public Law 99-294, passed on May 12, 1986, amended existing public law related to the Garrison Diversion Unit and addressed the major issues of meeting the water needs of North Dakota, addressing environmental impacts associated with the Garrison Diversion Unit, compensating farmers for lost land, honoring the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, and repaying Federal Loans that were used for the construction of the Garrison Diversion Unit.

To Implement Certain Recommendations Made Pursuant To Public Law 98-360, United States Congress, Us House Of Representatives

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This report, dated April 22, 1986, is the second part of a two-part report. The first report “Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 is dated April 9, 1986 and was written to accompany United States (US) House Resolution 1116.

This second part, presented by Morris K. Udall from the US House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, summarizes modifications proposed to the Garrison Diversion Unit and provides a cost estimated for the proposed bill. The report acknowledges the devastating effects that the Pick-Sloan Project had on the tribes living on Fort Berthold and Standing Rock reservations. US House Resolution …

Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act Of 1986, United States Congress, Us House Of Representatives

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This report from the United States (US) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs dated April 9, 1986, was written to accompany US House Resolution 1116 which seeks authorization for the construction of the Garrison Diversion Unit to help meet the water needs of North Dakota (ND). US House Resolution 1116 proposes improved repayment methods for irrigation and includes provisions that will compensate for farmland lost to the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. This report includes a history of the Garrison Dam project, including problems encountered with the proposed implementation of irrigation which some in Congress criticized as …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 8, Apr. 1986, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

No abstract provided.

Felix S. Cohen And His Jurisprudence: Reflections On Federal Indian Law, Stephen M. Feldman

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Environmental Right To Habitat Protection: A Sohappy Solution—United States V. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353 9th Cir.), Cert. Denied, 106 S. Ct. 407 (1985), Judith W. Constans

Washington Law Review

This Note indicates that both the district court's use of declaratory relief on the hatchery fish issue and the merits of its declaration on the environmental issue were entitled to affirmance. An analysis of the procedural history of the case suggests that the court should have decided the environmental issue. An analysis of the right to habitat protection reveals that habitat protection should be regarded as an implied term of the treaty right to take fish and that measuring the scope of the right by the tribes' moderate living needs fulfills the purpose of the treaty fishing clause. The measure …

Appellee Tribes' Reply Brief

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 85-3908, 85-4009 (813 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1987))

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief Of Appellants

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 85-3908, 85-4009 (813 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1987))

No abstract provided.

Three Affiliated Tribes V. Wold Engineering (1986), United States Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering is a case that forced the United States (US) Supreme Court to clarify US Public Law 83-280 (typically referred to as Public Law 280). Due to a lack of clarity in US Public Law 280, when the Three Affiliated Tribes attempted to sue Wold Engineering for breach of contract, North Dakota (ND) state courts told the tribes that they were unable to preside over a case between a sovereign nation and a private business. The ND Supreme Court held that the tribes would have to give up tribal sovereignty if they wanted to try …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 7, Jan. 1986, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

No abstract provided.

Economic Development In Indian Country: What Are The Questions?, Frank Pommersheim

Frank Pommersheim

No abstract provided.

Tribal Immunity, Tribal Courts, And The Federal System: Emerging Contours And Frontiers (With Terry Pachota), Frank Pommersheim

Frank Pommersheim

No abstract provided.

Law And Environment In Modern America And Among The Hopi Indians: Comparison Of Values, John W. Ragsdale Jr

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Law And Alaska Natives: The Warp And Woof Of A Field Of Law In Transition, Ralph W. Johnson

Articles

Reviewing Alaska Natives and American Laws, by David Case (1984).

El Salvador: Methods Use To Document Human Rights Violations, Gloria Valencia-Weber

Faculty Scholarship

This study describes and analyzes the methods used to document human rights abuses in El Salvador, focusing on the methods used by the United States Government through its Embassy in San Salvador, and by Tutela Legal, a nongovernmental monitoring agency in San Salvador. The authors examined Tutela and U.S. records which were relevant and available for 1980 through 1984 and used post-1984 official statements which relate to methods. The focus is on the method used for the documentation of the murder or disappearance of civilians. This paper begins with an examination of the current international human rights standards as they …

Law And Alaska Natives: The Warp And Woof Of A Field Of Law In Transition, Ralph W. Johnson

Washington Law Review

A book review of Alaska Natives and American Laws, by David Case (1984).

The Uses Of Myth: A Response To Professor Bassett, Susan H. Williams

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

United States V. Pend Oreille County P.U.D. No. 1: A Signal Conflict Between Equal Footing And Aboriginal Indian Title, Daniel H. Cole

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A summary judgment decision is ordinarily not casenote material. But the denial of summary judgment in Pend Oreille proved a significant victory to tribal bedlands claimants averting aboriginal rights. The decision allows tribes to avoid the presumption of state ownership of lands beneath navigable rivers, established by the Supreme Court in Montana v. United States, without proving conveyance by the federal government. Most importantly the Pend Oreille summary judgment decision illustrates the substantial flaws of the Montana rule.