Law Commons^™

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Decree For Water In Snake River Basin In Idaho, Fifth Judicial District Court, Twin Falls County, Idaho

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Revised Consent Decree: Parties: Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Idaho, United States, J.R. Simplot Company, Riddle Ranches. Duck Valley Reservation Contents: 1. Procedural History, Offer of Judgment. p.1; 2. Entry of Partial Final Decrees for Federal Reserved Water Rights. p.2; 3. Remaining Water Right Claims Disallowed, p.3; 4. Withdrawal of United States’ Objections to Riddle Ranch p.3; 5. Administration of Water Rights including tribal water code, p.3; 6. Waivers and Releases p.3; 7. No Establishment of Precedent, p.4; 8. Resolution and Finality, p.5; 9. Costs and Fees, p. 5; Attachment A, Consumptive Claim Numbers & Non-Consumptive, Instream Flow Claim Number p. …

Fort Mcdowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act Of 2006, United States 109th Congress

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Federal Legislation: Fort McDowell Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Revision Act of 2006 (PL 109-373, 120 Stat. 2650) This Act cancels the repayment obligation of the tribe under PL 101-628 and relieves the DOI secretary of its obligation to obtain mitigation property or develop additional farm acreage under the Act. [Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-120/pdf/STATUTE-120-Pg2650.pdf]

Public Safety And Criminal Justice, Kevin Washburn

Faculty Scholarship

Conference Transcript from The New Realism: The Next Generation of Scholarship in Federal Indian Law

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Agenda: Celebrating The Centennial Of The Antiquities Act, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, University Of Colorado Boulder. Center Of The American West

Celebrating the Centennial of the Antiquities Act (October 9)

For 100 years, the Antiquities Act has been used by nearly every President in the 20th century to set aside and protect lands threatened with privatization and development. The list of lands first protected under the Antiquities Act – and that might never have been protected without it – is truly remarkable. Many of our most treasured national parks including the Grand Canyon, Olympic, Zion, Arches, Glacier Bay, and Acadia, began as national monuments. All told, Presidents have issued 123 proclamations setting aside millions of acres of land under the Antiquities Act.

The Natural Resources Law Center and the Center …

Slides: The Centennial Of The Antiquities Act: A Cause For Celebration?, James R. Rasband

Celebrating the Centennial of the Antiquities Act (October 9)

Presenter: Professor James R. Rasband, Brigham Young University School of Law

20 slides

Notes On The Antiquities Act And Alaska, John Freemuth

Celebrating the Centennial of the Antiquities Act (October 9)

2 pages.

Slides: The Monumental Legacy Of The Antiquities Act Of 1906: The Rainbow Bridge National Monument In Context, Mark Squillace

Celebrating the Centennial of the Antiquities Act (October 9)

Presenter: Professor Mark Squillace, Director, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law

35 slides

The Road To The Antiquities Act And Basic Preservation Policies It Established, Francis P. Mcmanamon

Celebrating the Centennial of the Antiquities Act (October 9)

3 pages.

Antiquities Act Monuments: The Elgin Marbles Of Our Public Lands?, James R. Rasband

Celebrating the Centennial of the Antiquities Act (October 9)

13 pages.

Includes bibliographical references

Water Forum 2006, Susan Kelly

Publications

No abstract provided.

A Tale Of Conflicting Sovereignties: The Case Against Tribal Sovereign Immunity And Federal Preemption Doctrines Preventing States' Enforcement Of Campaign Contribution Regulations On Indian Tribes, Paul Porter

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note will discuss whether Indian tribes can assert tribal sovereign immunity to avoid compliance with state campaign finance regulation and whether such regulations should be preempted by federal law. Tribal sovereign immunity is not an enshrined constitutional imperative; it exists only under federal common law and can be limited by the courts from blocking state suits to enforce campaign finance regulations against tribes. This Note will also argue that state campaign finance regulations should not be preempted by federal law because states have a compelling interest in protecting their political processes from corruption that outweighs tribal interests in flouting …

Tribal-State Gaming Compacts And Revenue Sharing Provisions: Are The States Upping The Ante? , Richard L. Skeen

ExpressO

In the ten years following, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Seminole Tribe v. Florida, Indian Gaming has grown to over a $19 billion a year industry, in 26 States, involving over 241 Approved Class III Tribal Gaming Ordinances. States have been eager to get a piece of this ever-increasing pie. Some commentators have predicted that States will be reluctant to enter into new compacts or renew existing compacts, however, other’s have indicated that States will continue to demand a percentages of Gaming revenues.

This comment addresses the central issue of whether the Tribal-State compacts entered into subsequent to the …

Is Lara The Answer To Implicit Divestiture?: A Critical Analysis Of The Congressional Delegation Exception, Anna O. Sappington

ExpressO

This work concerns the Supreme Court’s 2004 Indian law decision United States v. Lara, in which the Court held that Congress could enlarge tribal sovereign authority through federal legislation. Proponents of tribal sovereignty generally consider the decision a victory; however, Lara also contains a large amount of dicta in which the Court hints that external limits may circumscribe Congress’ ability to restore tribal sovereignty. The author attempts to explain this discontinuity, and warns that Lara may not represent an unqualified victory for Indian Country. Specifically, the author argues that Lara’s comments could indicate the Court considers tribes divested of the …

Tribal Bondage: Statutory Shackles And Regulatory Restraints On Tribal Economic Development, Gavin Clarkson

ExpressO

Upwards of $50 billion in capital needs go unmet each year in Indian Country in such vital sectors as infrastructure, community facilities, housing, and enterprise development, in part due to the restrictions imposed on tribal access to the capital markets, specifically the ability of tribal governments to issue tax-exempt debt. Section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code requires tribal tax-free bond proceeds to be used only for “essential governmental functions,” a restriction not applicable to state and municipal bonds, and Section 7871(e) further limits the scope of available tax-exempt bonding to activities “customarily performed by State and local governments with …

Amendment No. 1 To The Amended And Restated Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement (2006), Gila River Indian Community, Et Al

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

No abstract provided.

A Race Or A Nation? Cherokee National Identity And The Status Of Freedmen's Descendents, S. Alan Ray

ExpressO

The Cherokee Nation today faces the challenge of determining its citizenship criteria in the context of race. The article focuses on the Cherokee Freedmen. As former slaves of Cherokee citizens, the Freedmen were adopted into the Cherokee Nation after the Civil War pursuant to a treaty with the United States, and given unqualified rights of citizenship. The incorporation of the Freedmen into the tribe was resisted from the start, and now, faced with a decision of the Cherokee Nation’s highest court affirming the descendents’ citizenship rights, the Nation prepares to vote on a constitutional amendment which would impose an Indian …

A Failure Of Expression: How The Provisions Of The U.S. Bankruptcy Code Fail To Abrogate Tribal Sovereign Immunity, Greggory W. Dalton

Washington Law Review

Sections 106(a) and 101(27) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code use the general phrase "other foreign or domestic government" to abrogate sovereign immunity without specifically referencing Indian tribes. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet decided whether these sections of the Code abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, and lower court decisions have come to varying conclusions. As a general rule, Indian tribes are immune from suit due to their inherent sovereignty. Congress, however, may abrogate the sovereign immunity of tribes by unequivocally stating its intent to do so in a statute. When interpreting abrogation provisions in a statute, courts have only found …

Water Reallocation By Settlement: Who Wins, Who Loses, Who Pays?, Rosalind H. Bark

ExpressO

The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act (AWSA) is the current standard for what a comprehensive, negotiated settlement can achieve in terms of water rights reallocation, water resource management, and water supply reliability enhancement. This note reviews the flows of money and water specified in Titles I and II of the AWSA to identify the signatory and non-signatory parties that benefit from the settlement and the allocation of costs between the various parties to the agreement. Opportunity costs are also considered. Innovative elements of the agreement are discussed particularly those that improve water supply reliability for the Gila River Indian Community …

“Hail To The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigeneous Persons” Just Doesn’T Have The Same Ring: Is The Name “Redskins” Offensive Enough To Outweigh Tradition?, Marvin L. Longabaugh

ExpressO

In this article, I discuss whether the federal government has an obligation to act to restrict the NFL’s Washington franchise’s use of the term “Redskins”. The article discusses the unique obligation that the courts have placed on the federal government with respect to Native Americans. It articulates two approaches that have been employed with varying degrees of success in abolishing the nickname. Free speech concerns are explored with respect to this issue. Finally, the article briefly discusses some proposed methods that the government could employ to “encourage” the Redskins and the NFL to change the nickname.

Two Spirits, Two Eras, Same Sex: For A Traditionalist Perspective On Native American Tribal Same-Sex Marriage Policy, Jeffrey S. Jacobi

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Recently, several states amended their constitutions to define marriage as only a union between a man and a woman. Many Native American Indian tribal governments thereafter also adopted laws prohibiting homosexual marriages. However, this new policy conflicts with traditional tribal values. This Note shows that historically many tribes accepted and even honored same-sex unions. This Note proposes that tribes consider their traditions as they existed before European contact, and argues that, for some tribes, same-sex civil unions are a historically and culturally appropriate answer to the modern objections to same-sex marriage.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians Settlement Agreement, Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians Et Al

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Settlement Agreement: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Settlement Agreement of June 7, 2006, (final signatures Oct. 18, 2008) Parties: Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, US, Eastern Municipal Water District, Lake Hemet Municipal Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Tribe is entitled to 9K acre-feet annually (afy) as a prior and paramount right. The districts agree to supply the Tribe water to the extent that it is not able to produce that amount. However, the Tribe agrees to limit its exercise of the right to 4,100 afy for 50 years. The Tribe may use water made available …

Testimony On The Regulation Of Indian Gaming, Oversight Hearing On The [Nigc] Minimum Internal Control Standards, Before The United States House Of Representatives, Committee On Resources, 109th Congress, 2nd Session, Kevin Washburn

Faculty Scholarship

State governments have an inherent conflict of interest in the regulation of Indian gaming. Strict regulation of Indian gaming can be good for the long term health of the industry, but may impact short term revenues. States have a strong short term interest in maximizing gaming revenue. Tribal governments should bear the primary responsibility for regulating Indian gaming. However, tribal regulators also have a weakness, namely, a myopia to the interests of other tribes and the national interests of the Indian gaming industry. Federal regulators can best protect the integrity of the industry nationally and ought to have a strong …

Active Water Resource Management: Tools For Better Water Management, John D'Antonio

Publications

No abstract provided.

Water For Energy In The Southwest: Finding Water For Mohave, Stanley M. Pollack

Publications

No abstract provided.

Water For Energy In The Southwest: Where Will It Come From?, Marilyn C. O'Leary

Publications

No abstract provided.

Draft Effects Report: Potential Transfer Of Garrison Project Lands Within The Fort Berthold Reservation Boundaries, Pursuant To The Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act, Us Army Corps Of Engineers, Omaha District, Nebraska

US Government Documents related to Indigenous Nations

This report, dated May 2006, from the United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (Omaha District, Nebraska) explains the potential transfer of unused lands from the Garrison Dam Project back to the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation. The land transfer proposed to return a portion of land out of the 153,000 acres taken by the US Government for the construction of the Garrison Dam. The authority of this transfer is granted by the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-602). This report is broken into four sections: Introduction, Background, Proposed Determination, Public Comment and Response. …

Implicit Divestiture Reconsidered: Outtakes From The Cohen's Handbook Cutting-Room Floor, John P. Lavelle

Faculty Scholarship

The most dramatic development in the field of Indian law during the years between publication of the 1982 and 2005 editions of Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law has been the Supreme Court's reliance on a judicially devised theory for denying the inherent sovereign governing authority of Indian nations in cases where Congress has not acted to divest tribes of this authority. The executive committee of the board of authors and editors for the 2005 revision of Cohen's Handbook recognized the importance of discussing this recent line of cases in-depth and entrusted me with the task of preparing the draft. …

Gayanashogowa And Guardianship: Expanding And Clarifying The Federal-Tribal Trust Relationship, Kavitha Janardhan

ExpressO

The Onondaga Nation of New York seeks to nullify a series of treaties executed by the State of New York, and thereby assert title to over 3100 square miles of land in Central New York State. The goal of the suit is to enforce an environmental restoration of culturally and historically significant aboriginal lands. In order to bring a claim against the State, the Nation must first compel the federal gov-ernment to act on its behalf. By emphasizing distinctive features of Iroquois self-government, the following Note suggests ways to expand the federal government’s trust responsibility to protect cultural inter-ests in …