Law Commons^™

Contract Between The United States And The Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, United States

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: Contract between the US and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe (Dec. 8, 1992). Parties: Jicarilla Apache Nation and US. The contract will come into effect when certain decrees are entered, claims dismissed, and cases resolved. When a decree is entered in the water rights adjudication styled NM v. US of the NM San Juan River system added to the decree in NM v. Aragon, a second water rights adjudication in NM will fully describe the Nation’s reserved water rights, that is, diversion not to exceed 40K acre-feet per year from the two stream systems. This water will come from …

Ute Indian Rights Settlement Act, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation, Title V - Ute Indian Rights Settlement of the 1992 Act To authorize addition Act to authorize additional appropriations for the construction of the Buffalo Bill Dam & Reservoir, Shoshone Project, Pick-Sloan MO Basin Program, WY, PL 102-575, 106 Stat. 4601, 4650 (Oct. 30, 1992). Parties: US & Ute Tribe. The 1990 Compact is ratified. The Act and revised Ute Indian Compact of 1990 are intended to quantify the Tribe’s reserved water rights; allow increased beneficial use of the water and put the Tribe in the same economic position it would have enjoyed had the Upalco and Uintah …

San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992, Title 37 of An Act to authorize additional appropriations for the construction of the Buffalo Bill Dam and Reservoir, Shoshone Project, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Wyoming (Oct. 30, 1992) PL 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600, 4740. Parties: San Carlos Apache Tribe, US, AZ, Salt River Project Agricultural Improve and Power District, Roosevelt Water Conservation District, Buckeye Irrigation District, Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District, Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Gilbert and Central AZ Water Conservation District. Tribe is a part of the Gila Water Rights Adjudication. This Act ratifies …

Technical Amendments To Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1982, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

The purpose insofar as it affects the Tohono O'odham Water Rights Settlement is to make various technical amendments in Sec 8.

1992 Amendments 1984 Ak-Chin Water Act, United States 102th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Ak-Chin Water Use Amendments of 1992 Sec. 10 (PL 102-497, § 10, 106 Stat. 3258, H.R. 5686 (102nd)) amending Ak-Chin Water Use Act of 1984. Gives Ak-Chin the right to lease or devote permanent water supply to any use, including agricultural, municipal, industrial, commercial, mining, recreational or any other beneficial use, in areas initially designated as Pinal, Phoenix and Tucson Active Management Areas pursuant to AZ Groundwater Management Act of 1980, pursuant to a contract that has been accepted and ratified by a resolution of Ak-Chin Indian Community Council and approved and executed by Secretary. Water rights may …

Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal legislation: Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992, PL 102-441, 106 Stat. 2237. Parties: Jicarilla Apache Nation, NM and the US. The US and the Tribal President are authorized to enter into a Settlement Contract. Sections 3 and 4 of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact should provide sufficient water. The Contract provides 33,500 a/f/y diversion from the Navajo Reservoir or Navajo River, and 6,500 a/f/y from the San Juan-Chama Project. Tribe is entitled to return flows and may subcontract for beneficial uses off reservation, but such uses are subject to state, federal and international law. The …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 26, Fall Issue, Sept. 1992, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

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

No abstract provided.

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992. PL 102-374, 106 Stat. 1186. Parties: US & Northern Cheyenne Nation. The Act ratifies a Compact with MT on June 11, 1991. The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Trust Fund will be established in the US Treasury, but the Tribe shall make a $11.5 million loan available to MT to assist with the Tongue River Dam Project costs (estimated at $52.2 million). For the Tribe itself, there are authorized $7.4 million in 1995, $9 million in 1996 and $5.1 million in 1997. $3.5 million is authorized …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 25, Spring Issue, Apr. 1992, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

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

No abstract provided.

Fifth Amendment Takings Implications Of The 1990 Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act, Ralph W. Johnson, Sharon I. Haensly

Articles

In November 1990, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA"). NAGPRA provides for the protection and disposition of Native American cultural items discovered on federal or tribal lands after NAGPRA's effective date. NAGPRA also addresses disposition of those objects currently held or controlled by federal agencies and museums. NAGPRA represents Congress' attempt to resolve years of debate between tribes, archaeologists, and museums. Like any legislative pronouncement, however, Congress left key issues to agencies and courts to resolve. This article focuses upon one such area, namely, Fifth Amendment takings questions that may arise when tribes or individual …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 24, Jan. 1992, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

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

No abstract provided.

Permanent Legislation To Correct Duro V. Reina, Nell Jessup Newton

Journal Articles

In Duro v. Reinal the Supreme Court held that Indian tribal courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians. In so doing the Court extended its earlier holding in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, which had prevented tribes from exercising criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and struck a serious blow to tribal sovereignty. The Oliphant decision has been soundly criticized as ahistorical and even dishonest, as well as essentially ethnocentric. The case also posed grave dangers to tribal people, because of the great number of nonmember Indians who live and work on Indian reservations, and the fact that nonmembers fall …

Indian Claims In The Courts Of The Conqueror, Nell Jessup Newton

Journal Articles

The Federal Circuit reviews Indian claims because Congress combined the former Court of Claims, which had jurisdiction over Indian claims, with the Court of Patent and Customs Appeals to create the new Claims Court. The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims also included some patent cases as well as tax, contract, pay suits, takings cases, and congressional reference cases. Congress added the Court of Claims to this mix in part to counter the argument that the two new courts, the Claims Court and the Federal Circuit, would become overly specialized.

Indian claims comprise only a tiny portion of the jurisdiction …

Who's In Charge Of U.S. Indian Policy?: Congress And The Supreme Court At Loggerheads Over American Indian Religious Freedom, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

The federal government's three branches—executive, legislative, judicial, and that unwieldy mass known simply as "the bureaucracy" have, during the last half-decade—1987-1991—produced a dizzying crop of laws, policies, proclamations, regulations, and court decisions which have served simultaneously to 1) reaffirm tribal sovereignty; 2) permit and encourage greater state interference within Indian Country; 3) enhance federal legislative authority over tribes; and 4) deny constitutional free-exercise protections both to individual Indians and to tribes.

On the legislative side, Congress has established the experimental Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project which is a major step towards restoring the tribal right of self-determination, and is discussing the …

Internal Tribal Fragmentation: An Examination Of A Normative Model Of Democratic Decision-Making, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

A recent commentary by Gerald A. Alfred in the spring 1991 edition of the Northeast Indian Quarterly dealt with a subject matter which is either ignored or radically exaggerated when it is broached in Indian Country: political fragmentation (or segments or cleavages) and ideological conflict within North American Indian tribes and the ramifications of such internal conflict on tribal identity.

This paper, after restating Alfred's major points about Mohawk segmentation at Kahnawake, describes and then analyzes a viable alternative democratic decision-making model which has been specifically designed to address the problems of how not only to restore, but also to …

'Coming To Our Senses': Communication And Legal Expression In Performance Cultures, Bernard J. Hibbitts

Articles

This article examines how semi-literate or largely non-literate cultures having little or no experience with writing ("performance cultures") communicate and express law and legal meaning through the orchestrated use of the physical senses. It first examines how each of the senses - hearing (sound), sight, touch, smell and taste - is brought to bear in the cultural and legal experience of performance-based societies. It then considers how and why members of performance cultures "perform", i.e. use and combine various sensory media in single messages, and describes how and why they use the same strategy in creating law and legal expression. …

The Legal Basis Of Aboriginal Title, Brian Slattery

Articles & Book Chapters

This paper considers a range of differing approaches to the question of Aboriginal land rights in the light of the judgment of the B.C. Supreme Court in the Delgamuukw case.

First Nations And The Constitution: A Question Of Trust, Brian Slattery

Articles & Book Chapters

This article argues that the fiduciary relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown is a special instance of a general doctrine of collective trust that animates the Canadian Constitution as a whole. This doctrine sheds light on the federal structure of Canada the unique status of Quebec, and the position of First Nations as a self-governing polities within Confederation. The article explores the origins and character of the constitutional trust, and considers its application to issues surrounding the inherent Aboriginal right ofself-government and Aboriginal land rights.