implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine in Montana

7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2007 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Arizona v. Californiagreen scotus · 1963 · cited in 6 Montana opinions naming this issue, 1985–2002 2 sentences 2002The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water “to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable.”Arizona v. California [(1963)], 373 U.S. [546,] 599-600, [ 83 S.Ct. 1468, 1497-98 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 ], The Winters Court held that reserved water on the Fort Belknap Reservation could be beneficially used for “acts of civilization” as well as for agricultural purposes. 2002The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water “to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable.”Arizona v. California [(1963)], 373 U.S. [546,] 599-600, [ 83 S.Ct. 1468, 1497-98 , 10 L.Ed.2d 542 ], The Winters Court held that reserved water on the Fort Belknap Reservation could be beneficially used for “acts of civilization” as well as for agricultural purposes.	1	6
Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn.green scotus · 1979 · cited in 5 Montana opinions naming this issue, 1985–2007 2 sentences 2007Furthermore, we noted: The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water “to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable.” Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 599-600, 83 S.Ct. at 1497 [decree entered, 376 U.S. 340 , 84 S.Ct. 755 , 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964)]. “[I]ndian treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood 2007Furthermore, we noted: The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water “to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable.” Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 599-600, 83 S.Ct. at 1497 [decree entered, 376 U.S. 340 , 84 S.Ct. 755 , 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964)]. “[I]ndian treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood	1	5
In re the Beneficial Water Use Permit Nos. 66459-76L, Ciotti 64988-g76L, Starnergreen mont · 1996 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶ 139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC's focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed changei.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the changewi 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC’s focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed change-i.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the change-wit	1	1
Dugan v. Rankgreen scotus · 1963 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Furthermore, we noted: The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water "to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable." Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 599-600, 83 S.Ct. at 1497 [decree entered, 376 U.S. 340 , 84 S.Ct. 755 , 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964)]. "[I]ndian treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood 2007Furthermore, we noted: The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water “to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable.” Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 599-600, 83 S.Ct. at 1497 [decree entered, 376 U.S. 340 , 84 S.Ct. 755 , 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964)]. “[I]ndian treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood	1	1
State Ex Rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservationgreen mont · 1985 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC’s focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed change-i.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the change-wit 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC’s focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed change-i.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the change-wit	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
Arizona v. California green scotus · 1964 2 sentences 2007Furthermore, we noted: The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water “to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable.” Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 599-600, 83 S.Ct. at 1497 [decree entered, 376 U.S. 340 , 84 S.Ct. 755 , 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964)]. “[I]ndian treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood 2007Furthermore, we noted: The Supreme Court has also held that under the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine, Indians are entitled to sufficient water “to develop, preserve, produce or sustain food and other resources of the reservation, to make it livable.” Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 599-600, 83 S.Ct. at 1497 [decree entered, 376 U.S. 340 , 84 S.Ct. 755 , 11 L.Ed.2d 757 (1964)]. “[I]ndian treaty rights to a natural resource that once was thoroughly and exclusively exploited by the Indians secures so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood	3	1985–2007
Winters v. United States green scotus · 1908 2 sentences 2002Winters v. [United States (1908)], 207 U.S. [564], 576 [ 28 S.Ct. 207, 211 , 52 L.Ed. 340 ]. 2002Winters v. [United States (1908)], 207 U.S. [564], 576 [ 28 S.Ct. 207, 211 , 52 L.Ed. 340 ].	2	1996–2002
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC’s focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed change-i.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the change-wit 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC’s focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed change-i.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the change-wit	1	2007–2007
Matter of Beneficial Water Use Permits green mont · 1996 2 sentences 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶ 139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC's focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed changei.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the changewi 2007Greely, 219 Mont. at 93 , 712 P.2d at 764-65 (first two alterations in original). ¶139 Because these water rights are ubiquitous and elusive, and likely pervasive on the Reservation, see Greely, 219 Mont. at 84 , 712 P.2d at 759 (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 811 , 96 S.Ct. at 1243 ); Ciotti, 278 Mont. at 59, 60 , 923 P.2d at 1079 , the DNRC’s focus in a change-of-use proceeding exclusively on whether the applicant will enlarge his or her existing appropriation by the proposed change-i.e., whether the quantity taken out after the proposed change will be greater than before the change-wit	1	2007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-702 (7) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-101 (6) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-102 (6) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-311 (5) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-402 (5) USC § 43u.s.c.666 (5) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-224 (4) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-234 (4) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-701 (4) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-316 (3) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-401 (3) MT § Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-404 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check