Law Commons^™

Chippewa-Cree Tribe Of The Rocky Boy Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement And Water Supply Enhancement Act Of 1999, United States 106th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal legislation: Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 1999 (PL 106–163, 113 Stat. 1778) Act approves and ratifies the Water Rights Compact entered into on April 14, 1997, by the Tribe and MT, as modified by this Act. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to execute and implement the Compact. Requires the US, the Tribe, or MT to petition the MT Water Court to enter and approve the proposed decree. Provides an expiration date; a tribal water code. Satisfies any entitlement to Federal Indian reserved water of any …

Environmentalism, Human Rights And Indigenous Peoples: A Tale Of Converging And Diverging Interests, S. James Anaya

Buffalo Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Linking Human Rights, Rights Of Indigenous People And The Environment, Sevine Ercmann

Buffalo Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Sanctioning A Tyranny: The Diminishment Of Ex Parte Young, Expansion Of Hans Immunity, And Denial Of Indian Rights In Coeur D'Alene Tribe, John P. Lavelle

Faculty Scholarship

This Article analyzes a recent decision of the Supreme Court that illustrates the enormous destructive power of the Rehnquist Court's peculiar brand of anti-tribal activism, Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe. Coeur d'Alene Tribe is likely to heighten the urgency with which Eleventh Amendment scholars have called for an overruling of Hans to ameliorate the damage that Hans and its progeny already have done to the regime of federally protected rights under the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States-a regime at the core of the Framers' vision of paramount federal law and essential to securing true liberty for all …

Aboriginal Forestry: Community Management As Opportunity And Imperative, Deborah Curran, Michael M'Gonigle

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In recognition that forests are one of their greatest resources, Aboriginal peoples are considering how altered tenure arrangements might uphold traditional values, including ecological integrity, while providing economic and employment opportunities. However, the federal and provincial forest management structures have historically precluded First Nations from helping to define, and participate in, the forest industry. The authors explore the legal and regulatory basis of forest management in Canada, and assess how it facilitates or impedes Aboriginal management of traditional areas. This is done through a legislative and policy analysis, and through the use of case studies from across Canada. The authors …

The Onus Of Proof Of Aboriginal Title, Kent Mcneil

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In the Delgamuukw decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly placed the onus on the Aboriginal nations to prove their title by showing occupation of lands at the time the Crown asserted sovereignty. In this article, it is argued that the common law could assist them in this respect. They should be able to rely on present or past possession to raise a presumption of Aboriginal title, and so shift the burden onto the Crown to prove its own title. Moreover, Aboriginal nations may be more successful if they bring an action for trespass or for recovery of possession of …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 47, Fall Issue, 1999, 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 Legend Of "Crow Dog:" An Examination Of Jurisdiction Over Intra-Tribal Crimes Not Covered By The Major Crimes Act, James W. King

Vanderbilt Law Review

Native American tribes present unique problems to American jurisprudence and governance. Unquestionably subject to federal control on some levels, they have maintained the "inherent powers of a limited sovereignty" over internal affairs.' While both the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized this sovereignty, specific Congressional mandate can abrogate it at any time. This Note addresses the question of whether Congress has mandated federal jurisdiction over all serious crimes committed by Indians against other Indians on tribal land.

The story is long and complicated, with its beginnings in the 1883 Supreme Court case Ex parte Crow Dog, in which the Court …

The Liberal Forces Driving The Supreme Court's Divestment And Debasement Of Tribal Sovereignty, Ann Tweedy

Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Appellant State Of Washington's Reply Brief

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 99-35104, 99-35140 (235 F.3d 438 (9th Cir. 2000))

No abstract provided.

Answering Brief Of Appellee Quinault Indian Nation

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 99-35104, 99-35140 (235 F.3d 438 (9th Cir. 2000))

No abstract provided.

Appellee Confederated Tribes Of The Chehalis Reservation Answering Brief

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 99-35104, 99-35140 (235 F.3d 438 (9th Cir. 2000))

No abstract provided.

Docket As Of July 14, 1999--Pueblo Of Sandia V. Babbitt, Et Al, United States District Court District Of Columbia

Sandia Pueblo Mountain Claim

No abstract provided.

Sovereignty's Alchemy: An Analysis Of Delgamuukw V. British Columbia, John Borrows

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its long-awaited judgment on the status of Aboriginal title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The decision was regarded as highly significant because it seemed to fundamentally alter the law of Aboriginal rights. This article suggests that while the case has somewhat positively changed the law to protect Aboriginal title, it has also simultaneously sustained a legal framework that undermines Aboriginal land rights. In particular, the decision's unreflective acceptance of Crown sovereignty places Aboriginal title in a subordinate position relative to other legal rights. This article examines …

Crow Tribe, Montana & Us Compact Of 1999, Montana

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement & State Legislation: Water Rights Compact Entered into by the State of Montana, the Crow Tribe and the USA (Jun. 22, 1999). (Mont. Code Ann. Sec. 85-20-901) There is no separate Settlement Agreememt. The State Legislation ratifies settlement of Crow water rights. Includes 500,000 a/f/y from Bighorn River, priority of May 7, 1868; 300,000 a/f/y from Bighorn Lake storage but limited to half that amount during low periods. A stream and lake-level management plan to be developed for the Bighorn River. Tribe has surface, GW and storage rights within the Little Bighorn River, Pryor Creek, and Rosebud Creek (to …

Appellant State Of Washington's Opening Brief

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 99-35104, 99-35140 (235 F.3d 438 (9th Cir. 2000))

No abstract provided.

Transparencies Used In The Introductory Remarks Of Doug Kenney, Ph.D., Natural Resources Law Center, Douglas Kenney

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

6 pages.

The Clean Water Action Plan, Sylvia V. Baca

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

3 pages.

Indian Water Rights And The Snake River Basin Adjudication, Peter C. Monson

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

19 pages (includes map).

Federal Facilitation Of Water Rights Negotiations In The West, Mike Connor

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

11 pages.

Federal Water Rights In The Snake River Basin Adjudication, Michael A. Gheleta

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

34 pages (includes maps).

Idaho's Snake River Basin Adjudication: A Window On Western Water Law, Jeffrey C. Fereday

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

34 pages.

Contains footnotes.

Colorado Water Courts: Are They Changing?, Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

56 pages.

Readings On Flagstaff Mountain, Excerpt From Conclusion Of Salt Dreams: Land Of Water In Low-Down California (1999), William Debuys

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

2 pages.

The Nineties: Major Developments In Western Water Law, David H. Getches

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

34 pages.

Do Basin-Wide Adjudications Work, For Tribes Or Anyone Else?, Reid Peyton Chambers

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

3 pages.

Basin-Wide Adjudications In The West: What Works, What Doesn’T?, Ramsey L. Kropf

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

18 pages.

Contains 2 pages of references.

Agenda: Strategies In Western Water Law And Policy: Courts, Coercion And Collaboration, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, University Of Colorado Boulder. Center Of The American West

Strategies in Western Water Law and Policy: Courts, Coercion and Collaboration (Summer Conference, June 8-11)

1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps, charts ; 29 cm

Conference organizers, session moderators and/or speakers included University of Colorado School of Law professors Gary C. Bryner, James N. Corbridge, Jr., David H. Getches, Douglas S. Kenney, Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Kathryn M. Mutz and Charles F. Wilkinson

Includes bibliographical references

The event will examine the principal problem-solving strategies in western water law and policy: courts, coercion and collaboration. In addressing this broad range of strategies, the program will focus on national, west-wide and Colorado-specific issues.

Conference activities will commence with a free public program cosponsored by the Center of …

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 46, Spring Issue, 1999, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

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

No abstract provided.

Of Provinces And S.35 Rights, Kerry Wilkins

Dalhousie Law Journal

It is now well established that federal law and regulatory activity may interfere with the exercise of aboriginal peoples' existing treaty and aboriginal rights, despite s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, whenever the federal government can justify the interference. It is not yet clear, though, what power, if any, Canada's provinces have to regulate, even in justified ways, such rights and their exercise. This article argues that the provinces, as a general rule, have no such authority. Except in certain very specific and isolated circumstances, they have no power, even apart from s. 35, to regulate the exercise of …