Superior Court >Adjudications Other Decisions and Links

Arizona Department of Water Resources

To learn about the Department's programs, visit http://www.water.az.gov/dwr/default.htm.

Dividing the Waters Project

The Dividing the Waters Project is a collaboration of a network of judges, special masters and referees who preside over western water adjudications and other complex water litigation. The central purpose of the project has been to improve the management and outcome of general stream adjudications and other complex water-related litigation affecting western people and the region's environment.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education

River Adjudications Symposium (May 2006).

Gila Water Commissioner

To learn about about the Globe Equity No. 59 Decree in the Federal District Court for Arizona, visit http://www.gilawater.org.

California

The California State Water Resources Control Board is studying the test for classifying subterranean streams flowing through known and definite channels. The Board retained Professor Joseph L. Sax to review the legal issues. Readers interested in subflow issues should find Professor Sax's Report interesting.

Colorado

Santa Fe Trail Ranches Property Owners Ass'n v. Simpson, 990 P.2d 46 (Colo. 1999) (.pdf) - The Colorado Supreme Court addressed an unauthorized change of use of a water right.

SL Group, L.L.C. v. Go West Industries, Inc. (.pdf) - The Colorado Supreme Court addressed the reopening of an adjudication decree for lack of notice to an adjoining landowner.

United States v. Denver, 656 P.2d 1, 31-33 (Colo. 1982) (citation only) - The Colorado Supreme Court addressed aspects of Public Water Reserve No. 107 claims.

Idaho

The Snake River Basin Adjudication in Idaho shares similarities with Arizona adjudications. To learn about the SRBA, visit http://www.srba.state.id.us.

United States v. State, 131 Idaho 468, 959 P.2d 449 (Idaho 1998), cert. denied sub nom. Idaho v. United States and Hoagland v. United States, 526 U.S. 1012 (1999) (citation only) - The Idaho Supreme Court addressed aspects of Public Water Reserve No. 107 claims.

Montana

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, State of Montana v. Stults et al, Montana Supreme Court, December 6, 2002 - The Montana Supreme Court held that state officials (Department of Natural Resources and Conservation) cannot issue any new water use permits, including groundwater uses, on the Flathead Indian Reservation before federal reserved water rights for the Reservation are quantified.

In the Matter of the Adjudication of the Existing Rights to the Use of All the Water Within the Missouri River Drainage Area, Montana Supreme Court, September 24, 2002 - The Montana Supreme Court reversed one of its prior decisions and addressed the need for a physical diversion of water when considering a claim for an instream flow right under Montana law.

In the Matter of the Adjudication of Existing and Reserved Rights of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Water Court, August 10, 2001 (.pdf) - The Water Court approved the Compact or agreement between the State of Montana, the United States, and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and dismissal of objections.

Oregon

To learn about adjudications and water resources in Oregon, visit http://www.wrd.state.or.us.

Federal Appellate Decisions

U.S. v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co. and Nevada State Engineer, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 20, 2003 (.pdf) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the continuing determination of applications filed with the Nevada State Engineer to transfer water rights and the challenges of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians and the United States to those applications on the grounds that the water rights had been abandoned, forfeited, or not exercised as required by Nevada law.

Nevada State Engineer v. South Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, July 28, 2003 (.pdf) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order that the State of Nevada maintains jurisdiction over the administration of State decreed water rights.

United States v. Matley, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, January 20, 2004 (.pdf) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court's determination, based upon a recommendation of a special master, regarding an application for reclassification of lands for water allocation purposes. The Court interpreted some aspects of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 relating to the powers of a special master. The federal rule is similar to Arizona's Rule of Civil Procedure 53 (Masters). The substantive issues involved the correct beneficial use standard to apply when reclassifying lands within this reclamation project in western Nevada.