In re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System (Big Horn I)
Wyoming Supreme Court
753 P.2d 76, affirmed sub nom. Wyoming v. United States, 492 U.S. 406, 109 S.Ct. 2994 (1988), 106 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The federal government established the Wind River Indian Reservation under an 1868 treaty that explicitly encouraged agricultural development, although other activities were allowed. In 1977, Wyoming (plaintiff) enacted legislation authorizing system-wide water rights adjudications. Two days later, Wyoming brought a water rights action against the United States and other parties (defendants) over water in the Big Horn River System. The court divided the lawsuit into three phases, with only Indian-reserved water rights decided here. The special master report found that the reservation’s purpose was to provide an Indian homeland and therefore recommended awarding a reserved water right for irrigation, stock watering, fisheries, wildlife and aesthetics, as well as mineral, industrial, domestic, commercial, and municipal uses. Multiple parties objected. The water judge approved only the award of reserved water rights for practicably irrigable acreage (PIA) within the reservation, rejecting the recommendations as to water rights for any uses other than agriculture. The parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Dissent (Hanscum, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
