Law Commons^™

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1988, Amendments Of 1991, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: 1991 Amendments to Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement of 1988 (Dec. 17, 1991} Amends the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (PL 100-512, sections7(a), 7(d), 10(a)(1)(A), 10(a)(1)(B), and 12(b)) to extend the deadline for completing such Settlement from Dec. 31, 1991, to June 30, 1992. [Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1992&searchPath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1992&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&ancestors=root&packageid=STATUTE-106&ycord=1025]

Implementing Certain Recommendations Of The Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee Regarding The Entitlement Of The Three Affiliated Tribes And The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe To Additional Financial Compensation For The Taking Of Reservation Lands For The Site Of The Garrison Dam And Reservoir And The Oahe Dam And Reservoir And For Other Purposes, United States Congress, Us House Of Representatives

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This report from the United States (US) House Select Committee on Indian Affairs, dated November 26, 1991, was written to accompany US Senate Bill 168 which aimed to provide the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux with fair compensation for lands taken for construction of the Garrison Dam and Oahe Dam as well as the return of land that was taken but not used for the dam projects. The report summarizes the background and need for US Senate Bill 168, and it acknowledges that the implementation of the Pick-Sloan Plan effectively forced the Three Affiliated tribes off their land …

An Act Making Appropriations For The Department Of The Interior And Related Agencies For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1992, And For Other Purposes, United States 102nd Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Amendment of 1991 Authority to Disburse Interest Income from the San Luis Rey Tribal Development Fund. (Nov. 13, 1991) Parties: La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians, US, CA, Escondido Mutual Water Company and Vista Irrigation District. Amends Public Law 100-675, Sec. 117 to provide authority to disburse interest income to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority from the San Luis Rey Tribal Development Fund until the final Settlement is completed. [Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1991&searchPath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29%2F1991&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&ancestors=root&packageid=STATUTE-105&ycord=1025]

Two Sides Of The Same Coin: The Potential Normative Power Of American Cities And Indian Tribes, Kevin J. Worthen

Vanderbilt Law Review

People do not normally associate cities with Indian reservations.The mental images typically conjured by each term are radically different. For most people, "city" evokes visions of skyscrapers, streets teeming with traffic, and bustling crowds. "Indian reservation," on the other hand, brings to mind pictures of solitude, rugged nature, and large empty spaces.

Perhaps for that reason, few think of city governments' and tribal governments in similar terms. The two entities usually are oblivious of one another. When they are introduced, it is often as adversaries in a legal battle concerning the right to govern some rural western community.

Yet, the …

Justification And Cultural-Authority In S.35(1) Of The Constitution Act, 1982: Regina V. Sparrow, Chris Tennant

Dalhousie Law Journal

Regina v. Sparrow is the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada under s.35(1) of the Constitution Ac 1982. The case has wide-reaching implications for the recognition and limitation of aboriginal rights. This case comment will explore some of the implications of Sparrow, with a focus on the test developed by the Court for the justification of government regulation of aboriginal rights. In particular, the question of the cultural authority of non-aboriginal judges to justify legislation regulating aboriginal rights will be addressed.

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 23, Oct. 1991, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

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

No abstract provided.

Sparrow And Lone Wolf: Honoring Tribal Rights In Canada And The United States, Matthew D. Wells

Washington Law Review

Tribal sovereignty and self-government are essential to Native American cultural survival. Current limitations on Congress' plenary power in Indian affairs are inadequate to protect these core tribal rights. This Comment examines recent developments in Canadian law and proposes legislation following the Canadian example to better protect core tribal rights in the United States.

Aboriginal Sovereignty And Imperial Claims, Brian Slattery

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

It is commonly assumed that Indigenous American nations had neither sovereignty in international law nor title to their territories when Europeans first arrived; North America was legally vacant and European powers could gain title to it simply by discovery, symbolic acts, occupation, or treaties among themselves. It follows, on this view, that current Indigenous claims to internal sovereignty or a "third order of government" have no historical basis. This paper argues that this viewpoint is misguided and cannot be justified either by reference to positive international law or basic principles of justice. The author's view is that Indigenous American nations …

Fragile Gains: Two Centuries Of Canadian And United States Policy Toward Indians, Ralph W. Johnson

Articles

The United States and Canada share a common history in their policies toward and legal treatment of the Native Americans that historically have occupied both countries. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established a policy of recognizing Aboriginal title and treating with Indians that was binding on the colonies that preceded both countries, and influenced both governments in later dealings with tribes. Assimilationist themes are evident as well in the national policy toward Indians in both countries. Nevertheless, historically and in the present, national policies and laws of the two governments can be contrasted. This Article sets forth a detailed comparison …

Aboriginal Rights: The Dispossession Of The Métis, L. A. H. Chartrand

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Section 31 of the Manitoba Act 1870 provided for a land settlement scheme for the benefit of the families of the Métis residents, towards the extinguishment of the Indian title. There are now no Métis reserves in Manitoba; section 31 was implemented in a way which permitted the quick dispossession of the Métis in the nineteenth century. The writer argues that the mode of implementing section 31 was a breach of constitutional obligation. Reference is made to the subsequent history of the western Métis and comments are offered regarding the current significance of the Métis dispossession.

Fragile Gain: Two Centuries Of Canadian And United States Policy Toward Indians, Ralph W. Johnson

Washington Law Review

The United States and Canada share a common history in their policies toward and legal treatment of the Native Americans that historically have occupied both countries. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established a policy of recognizing Aboriginal title and treating with Indians that was binding on the colonies that preceded both countries, and influenced both governments in later dealings with tribes. Assimilationist themes are evident as well in the national policy toward Indians in both countries. Nevertheless, historically and in the present, national policies and laws of the two governments can be contrasted. This Article sets forth a detailed comparison …

Brief For The Federal Amicus Curiae

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 90-35887 (969 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1992))

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief Of Appellant

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 90-35887 (969 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1992))

No abstract provided.

Brief For Appellee State Of Washington

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 90-35887 (969 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1992))

No abstract provided.

Dam Fights And Water Policy In California: 1969-1989, Harrison C. Dunning

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

49 pages (includes illustrations and maps).

Contains references.

Washington Instream Resources Protection: In Transition, Hedia Adelsman

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

45 pages.

Contains references.

The Public Interest: A Matter Of Discretion?, R. Keith Higginson

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

15 pages.

Federal Regulatory Interests In Water, Patricia Sanderson Port

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

39 pages.

Contains references.

Coordinated Water Management Under The Prior Appropriation Doctrine In New Mexico: The Rio Grande Case – The Pecos River Case, Eluid L. Martinez

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

26 pages.

The 1990 Fort Hall Water Rights Agreement: A Study In The Federal Trust Responsibility, Indian Self-Determination, And Water Rights Settlement, John S. Bushman

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

171 pages.

Pyramid Lake Negotiated Settlement: Overview And Perspective, Joe Ely

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

20 pages.

Negotiating An Indian Water Rights Settlement: The Colorado Ute Indian Experience, Lois G. Witte

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

28 pages.

Big Horn River Litigation Experience: The Second Generation – Post Decree Administration, Gordon W. Fassett

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

5 pages.

Agenda: Innovation In Western Water Law And Management, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

Conference organizers and/or faculty included University of Colorado School of Law professors Lawrence J. MacDonnell, David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson and Richard B. Collins.

Pressures of population, drought, and changing water use have provided the impetus for numerous innovations in water law and management in recent years. The Center's annual conference June 5-7, 1991, will look at innovation and change in five areas--water planning, special water management areas, negotiated settlements of tribal water rights, conjunctive use of ground and surface water, and public values in water decision making. Each session will begin with talks by experts from several western …

Designing Dispute Resolution Systems For Water Policy And Management, Karen L. Barclay, Matthew J. Mckinney

Innovation in Western Water Law and Management (Summer Conference, June 5-7)

34 pages.

Contains references.

Northern Cheyenne Tribe Water Rights Compact, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Mt

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement and State Legislation: Water Rights Compact State among Montana, Northern Cheyenne Tribe and US. MCA 85-20-301 (1991). The statute ratifies Compact between Northern Cheyenne, MT and US. This Compact resolves all water claims by the Northern Cheyenne within MT so long as the Tongue River Reservoir is repaired and expanded. Pre-existing stock water, domestic and municipal water uses are recognized. Tribe has right to 32,500 a/f/y of direct flow and storage from the Tongue River Basin (and first rights to excess) with a priority date of Oct. 1, 1881 provided that actual depletion does not exceed 9,375 a/f/y. …

Brief Of The Appellant

United States v. Washington, Docket No. 90-35887 (969 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1992))

No abstract provided.

The American Indian In Western Legal Thought: The Discourses Of Conquest, Melissa L. Koehn

Michigan Law Review

A Review of The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest by Robert A. Williams, Jr.

Improving Access To Legal Education For Native People In Canada: Dalhousie Law School's I.B.M. Program In Context, Hugh Macaulay

Dalhousie Law Journal

This paper is about access to legal education for Native peoples in Canada. It is important at the very outset of this undertaking to explain my interest in this issue and to describe the perspective from which I write. At the beginning of the 1989-90 academic year I returned to Halifax to discover that Dalhousie had implemented a program to increase access for Blacks and Micmacs to legal education. Motivated by my support for this initiative, I applied to be a tutor in the program and was fortunate enough to be selected.

The Decline Of Tribal Sovereignty: The Journey From Dicta To Dogma In Duro V. Reina, 110 S. Ct. 2053 (1990), Peter Fabish

Washington Law Review

In Duro v. Reina, the Supreme Court held that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over Indians committing crimes within their territorial jurisdiction, but not belonging to their tribe. This holding is incompatible with judicial precedent as well as contemporary executive and congressional policy. The decision also creates serious practical problems for tribal, federal and state authorities by leaving a jurisdictional void over nonmember Indian criminals. A holding that tribal courts have jurisdiction over all tribal Indians who commit crimes on reservations would have been in harmony with judicial, congressional and executive precedent, and would not have created equal protection …