Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1650485
 
 

Footnotes (152)



 


 



Indian Water Rights, Practical Reasoning and Negotiated Settlements


Robert T. Anderson


University of Washington School of Law

July, 29 2010

California Law Review, Forthcoming

Abstract:     
Indian reserved water rights have a strong legal foundation buttressed by powerful moral principles. As explained more fully below, the Supreme Court has found implied reserved rights when construing treaties and other legal instruments recognizing or creating tribal reservations when access to water is necessary to fulfill the purposes behind establishing the reservation. The precise scope and extent of these rights in any treaty are unknown until quantified by a court ruling or an agreement ratified by Congress. When litigation is the quantification tool, tribal claims are generally caught up in massive general-stream adjudications. These adjudications are massive because to obtain jurisdiction over the Indian water rights (and over the United States as trustee to the tribes), states must adjudicate all claims to a given river system; they may not engage in piecemeal litigation of only the Indian and federal claims. The result can be that there are thousands of state water right holders who must be joined as parties to exceedingly complex litigation that takes too long and costs too much. Moreover, even when such adjudications are litigated to a conclusion and tribes win a decreed water right, such a “paper right” may do little to advance tribal needs without the financial ability or the infrastructure to put the water to use. At the same time, the general failure of the United States to assert and protect tribal rights until the 1970s, along with its zealous advancement of competing non-Indian uses, created expectations among non-Indians that their state-law water rights were secure. In fact, many non-Indian rights are far from secure.

This article first reviews the Indian water rights issues that the Supreme Court has decided. The article then traces a critical issue common to Indian water rights litigation in the federal and state courts: how to determine the purposes of the reservation for which a reserved water right should be implied. The review of Indian water rights cases demonstrates the generally confusing state of the law in significant respects, especially with regard to the “purposes” determination. The relative uncertainty in this context fits neatly into the portions of Professor Frickey’s scholarship that call for less litigation and more sovereign-to-sovereign negotiation. Finally, the article reviews the approach taken by the parties and Congress in several recent Indian water rights settlements. There have been over two dozen Indian water rights settlements since the 1970s, each usually preceded by years of litigation. Given the Supreme Court’s abandonment of long accepted substantive and interpretive rules of Indian law, many tribes now prefer government-to-government negotiations for settling natural resource disputes in lieu of “all or nothing” litigation.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 48

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 30, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Anderson, Robert T., Indian Water Rights, Practical Reasoning and Negotiated Settlements (July, 29 2010). California Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1650485

Contact Information

Robert T. Anderson (Contact Author)
University of Washington School of Law ( email )
Seattle, WA
206.685-2861 (Phone)

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 714
Downloads: 156
Download Rank: 111,078
Footnotes:  152

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.234 seconds