The Wyoming Supreme Court applied state law to Indian reserved water rights in its recent decision in In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System (Big Horn III). Prior to Big Horn III, courts never applied state law to such rights. This Note argues that the Wyoming decision contradicts federal reserved water rights law and federal Indian law, and concludes that Congress should enact legislation overturning the Big Horn III decision
Document: 88th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Document No. 20, Determination of the Rights of the St...
In the seminal Indian water rights case, Winters v. United Slates (1908), the Court posed this quest...
Cappaert v. United States is the latest in a long line of cases dealing with the implied reservatio...
Abstract The State of Wyoming’s general stream adjudication in the Wind/Big Horn Basin (“Big Horn” a...
On November 26, 2001, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that Indian reservations were established ...
Most American Indian rights to water trace their origins to 19th century treaty negotiations with th...
Western state water law has been notorious for its failure to protect streamflows. One potential mea...
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court decided Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Unite...
The reserved water rights doctrine is — and always has been — a controversial doctrine in Western wa...
Although federal policy shifted from assimilation to pro-tribal positions, the federal courts have q...
Adjudication of Indian Water Rights: Implementation of the 1979 Amendments to the Water Use Ac
In 1989, in a four-to-four vote without opinion, the United States Supreme Court let stand a senior ...
In 1974 the Crow Tribal Council enacted a resolution restricting reservation hunting and fishing to ...
Did Wyoming violate the Yellowstone River Compact’s provisions governing the Tongue River in various...
The issue of Indian water rights has received very thorough and scholarly attention over the past tw...
Document: 88th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Document No. 20, Determination of the Rights of the St...
In the seminal Indian water rights case, Winters v. United Slates (1908), the Court posed this quest...
Cappaert v. United States is the latest in a long line of cases dealing with the implied reservatio...
Abstract The State of Wyoming’s general stream adjudication in the Wind/Big Horn Basin (“Big Horn” a...
On November 26, 2001, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that Indian reservations were established ...
Most American Indian rights to water trace their origins to 19th century treaty negotiations with th...
Western state water law has been notorious for its failure to protect streamflows. One potential mea...
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court decided Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Unite...
The reserved water rights doctrine is — and always has been — a controversial doctrine in Western wa...
Although federal policy shifted from assimilation to pro-tribal positions, the federal courts have q...
Adjudication of Indian Water Rights: Implementation of the 1979 Amendments to the Water Use Ac
In 1989, in a four-to-four vote without opinion, the United States Supreme Court let stand a senior ...
In 1974 the Crow Tribal Council enacted a resolution restricting reservation hunting and fishing to ...
Did Wyoming violate the Yellowstone River Compact’s provisions governing the Tongue River in various...
The issue of Indian water rights has received very thorough and scholarly attention over the past tw...
Document: 88th Congress, 1st Session, Senate, Document No. 20, Determination of the Rights of the St...
In the seminal Indian water rights case, Winters v. United Slates (1908), the Court posed this quest...
Cappaert v. United States is the latest in a long line of cases dealing with the implied reservatio...