About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

68 U. Colo. L. Rev. 683 (1997)
A Misplaced Sensitivity: The Draft Opinions in Wyoming v. United States

handle is hein.journals/ucollr68 and id is 705 raw text is: A MISPLACED SENSITIVITY: THE DRAFT OPINIONS IN WYOMING V. UNITED STATES ANDREW C. MERGEN* & SYLVIA F. LIu** I. INTRODUCTION In early 1989, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the practicably irrigable acreage (PIA) standard used to quantify Indian' reserved water rights.' On June 26, 1989, after full briefing and argument, the Supreme Court affirmed a Wyoming Supreme Court decision applying the PIA standard to calculate Indian reserved water rights on the Wind River Reservation.? The Court, however, did not publish an opinion, causing much speculation among commentators and interested parties about the future of the controversial PIA standard.4 * Attorney, Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. U.S. Department of Justice. B.A., University of Wisconsin-Madison; J.D., George Washington University Law School. The opinions and views stated in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Department of Justice or any other federal agency. This article was written in the authors' individual capacities. The authors thank Peter Menges and Kate Dowling for their assistance with the research and editing of this article. ** Attorney, Policy, Legislation, and Special Litigation Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice. B.A., Yale University; J.D., Harvard Law School. 1. We use the term Indian throughout this article because we believe it is more commonly used in the context of water rights than the broader term Native American. 2. Wyoming v. United States, 488 U.S. 1040 (1989). 3. Wyoming v. United States, 492 U.S. 406, 407 (1989). 4. Several commentators analyzed the Justices' questions and statements made during oral argument in an effort to predict the future of the PIA standard. See Joseph R. Membrino, Indian Reserved Water Rights, Federalism and the Trust Responsibility, 27 LAND & WATER L. REV. 1 (1992); Walter Rusinek, Note, A Preview of Coming Attractions? Wyoming v. United States and the Reserved Rights Doctrine, 17 ECOLOGY L.Q. 355 (1990); Martha C. Franks, The Uses of the Practicably Irrigable Acreage Standard in the Quantification of Reserved Water Rights, 31 NAT. RESOURCES J. 549 (1991) (criticizing the PIA standard for its speculative and subjective nature and for not addressing the real economic needs of the Indian people). For a discussion of the PIA standard and the Winters doctrine of Indian reserved water rights, see infra Part II.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most