In re Big Horn River System

9 Citing cases

  1. United States v. State (In re CSRBA Case No. 49576)

    165 Idaho 517 (Idaho 2019)   Cited 1 times

    United States v. Washington, 375 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1063-64 (W.D. Wash. 2005) ; In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River Sys. (hereafter Big Horn I ), 753 P.2d 76, 96-97 (Wyo. 1988), aff'd sub nom. Wyoming v. United States, 492 U.S. 406, 109 S.Ct. 2994, 106 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989) (affirmed by an equally divided court without opinion), and abrogated on other grounds by Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149 (Wyo. 1998) ; In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River Sys. (hereafter Big Horn III ), 835 P.2d 273, 278-79 (Wyo. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that New Mexico's primary-secondary analysis, despite not being "directly applicable" to Indian reservations, has several useful guidelines.

  2. Ultra Res., Inc. v. Doyle & Margaret M. Hartman, John H. Hendrix Corp.

    2015 WY 40 (Wyo. 2015)   Cited 13 times
    Rejecting application of law of the case and collateral estoppel because the district court had not ruled on the issue

    [¶ 17] Section 1–37–110 has been cited as authority for courts' post-declaratory judgment determinations in various contexts for many years. In In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273 (Wyo.1992), the tribes filed a motion for order to show cause why the state engineer should not be held in contempt for failing to follow an earlier declaratory judgment concerning tribal water rights. While sorting out various orders that had previously been entered in the case, we addressed the state engineer's duty to follow and implement earlier declaratory judgment rulings.

  3. Platt v. Platt

    2014 WY 142 (Wyo. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    It is a scarce resource which must be effectively managed and efficiently used to meet the various demands of society. In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273, 279 (Wyo.1992) (plurality opinion). [¶ 36] The property has excellent water rights, some of them dating back to when Wyoming was a territory pioneering the system of priority by appropriation, which has become the model for western states.

  4. Difelici v. City of Lander

    2013 WY 141 (Wyo. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Presuming legislature's knowledge of flooding risks and the associated costs of that risk in interpreting Wyoming Governmental Claims Act

    It is a scarce resource which must be effectively managed and efficiently used to meet the various demands of society.In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273, 279 (Wyo.1992) (plurality opinion). [¶ 31] We presume that the legislature has acted in a thoughtful and rational manner with full knowledge of existing law when it enacts a statute.

  5. Confed. Salish v. Clinch

    336 Mont. 302 (Mont. 2007)   Cited 11 times

    See, e.g., Walton, 647 F.2d at 52 ("Especially in arid and semi-arid regions of the West, water is the lifeblood of the community."); In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River Sys., 835 P.2d 273, 279 (Wyo. 1992) ("Water is the lifeblood of Wyoming."). Whether the change of use would adversely affect the Tribes and whether such assertion of regulatory authority by the State would have a direct effect on the Tribes are legal conclusions.

  6. In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water

    2004 WY 21 (Wyo. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    We have summarized the vast factual and legal background of this litigation in prior appeals to this Court. See In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 803 P.2d 61 (Wyo. 1990) (Big Horn II); In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273 (Wyo. 1992); In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 753 P.2d 76, 83-86 (Wyo. 1988), cert. granted in part, 488 U.S. 1040, aff'd sub nom., Wyoming v. United States, 492 U.S. 406 (1989) ( Big Horn I). The case as a whole was divided into three phases: Phase I, Indian reserved water rights; Phase II, non-Indian federal reserved water rights; and Phase III, state water rights evidenced by a permit or certificate. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 85.

  7. In Re: General Adjudication, Rights

    2002 WY 89 (Wyo. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    Id. Through prior appeals to this court, we have provided summaries of the factual and legal background of this litigation. See State v. Owl Creek Irrigation District Members, 753 P.2d 76, 83-86 (Wyo. 1988), cert. granted in part, 488 U.S. 1040, aff'd sub nom. Wyoming v. United States, 492 U.S. 406 (1989) ( Big Horn I); Alexander v. United States, 803 P.2d 61 (Wyo. 1990) ( Big Horn II); In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273 (Wyo. 1992); Big Horn V, 899 P.2d 848. [¶ 3] In the initial appeal, Big Horn I, 753 P.2d 76, this court was called upon to determine whether non-Indian water users could claim a federal reserved right with an 1868 priority date as successors in interest to Indian allottees who received fee lands under the General Allotment Act of 1887 (now 25 U.S.C. § 331-358) and reserved water rights through the 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger, which established the Wind River Indian Reservation. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).

  8. In re General Adjudication of All Rights

    201 Ariz. 307 (Ariz. 2001)   Cited 18 times
    Discussing Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340

    ¶ 27 It is true that some courts have utilized the primary-secondary purpose test or looked to it for guidance when dealing with Indian lands. See Adair, 723 F.2d at 1408 (stating that New Mexico is not directly applicable, but establishes "several useful guidelines"); Walton, 647 F.2d at 47 (applying the test); In re the General Adjudication of all Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273, 278-79 (Wyo. 1992) [Big Horn II] (following the test). Nevertheless, we believe the significant differences between Indian and non-Indian reservations preclude application of the test to the former.

  9. HOFELDT v. EYRE

    849 P.2d 1295 (Wyo. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    Because of the great value of water, an appropriator, according to the basic statute on abandonment, cannot hold his water rights indefinitely without using them. Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401. In re General Adjudication of All Rights to use Water in Big Horn River System, 835 P.2d 273, 279 (Wyo. 1992). We hold that supplemental water rights are subject to abandonment under Wyo. Stat. § 41-3-401, et seq.