DOCSLIB.ORG

Original No. 137 Montana V. Wyoming and North Dakota

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Original No. 137 Montana V. Wyoming and North Dakota No. 137, Original IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— October Term 2014 ———— STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendants. ———— SECOND INTERIM REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER (LIABILITY ISSUES) ———— BARTON H. THOMPSON, JR. Special Master Stanford, California December 29, 2014 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................... xxi I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 II. THE RECORD .......................................... 3 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................... 4 A. The Tongue River ................................ 4 B. Tongue River Water Use ..................... 8 1. Wyoming’s use of the Tongue River ............................................... 9 2. Montana’s use of the Tongue River ........................................................ 10 C. The Tongue River Reservoir ............... 12 IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND .......................... 14 A. The Yellowstone River Compact......... 14 1. Key provisions of the Compact ...... 14 2. Difficulties in administering the Compact.......................................... 18 B. Western Water Law ............................ 18 C. The Northern Cheyenne Compact ...... 22 V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................... 24 A. Montana v. Wyoming, 131 S. Ct. 1765 (2011) ................................................... 25 B. Subsequent Pre-Trial Proceedings ..... 26 1. Wyoming’s 2011 motion for partial summary judgment ........................ 27 (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page 2. Montana’s claims under Article V(B)................................................. 28 3. Montana’s voluntary dismissal of its Powder River Basin claims ....... 30 4. Wyoming’s 2013 Motion for Summary Judgment ...................... 30 5. Montana’s 2013 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ...................... 31 C. The Trial .............................................. 31 1. In limine motions ........................... 31 2. Trial Proceedings ........................... 34 VI. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES .................. 35 A. Notice ................................................... 36 B. Pre-1950 Shortages in Montana ......... 36 C. Post-1950 Wyoming Diversions and Storage ................................................. 38 D. Impact at the Stateline ....................... 39 E. Intrastate Regulation .......................... 39 F. Injury to Montana Appropriators ....... 40 VII. ANALYSIS ................................................ 40 A. The Appropriate Standard of Proof .... 40 B. The Need for Caution in Restricting State Practices ..................................... 44 C. Notice ................................................... 47 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page 1. The Compact requires Montana to notify Wyoming when it needs water for pre-1950 appropriative rights under Article V(A) ............... 47 a) The language of the Compact ... 49 b) Previous practice of the States .. 54 c) Notice does not need to take any particular form or contain any particular information other than Montana’s water shortage 58 d) The date of notice is critical in determining Wyoming’s liability, if any.......................................... 62 e) Exceptions to the notice require­ ment........................................... 65 2. Factual findings ............................. 66 a) Wyoming is entitled to summary judgment for 1982, 1985, 1992, 1994, and 1998.......................... 68 (1) 1981, 1982, and 1985 .......... 69 (2) 1992, 1994, and 1998 .......... 72 b) Trial evidence............................ 73 (1) 1981...................................... 75 (2) 1982, 1985, 1992, and 1994. 79 (3) 1987-1989 ............................. 80 (4) 2000-2003 ............................. 82 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page (5) 2004...................................... 88 (6) 2006...................................... 94 3. Conclusions..................................... 97 D. Shortages of Water for Pre-1950 Rights in Montana ............................... 99 1. Tongue River Reservoir storage rights............................................... 99 a) Factual timeline........................ 100 b) Relevant Compact provisions ... 108 c) Relevant appropriation law...... 111 (1) Wyoming storage law ........... 114 (2) Montana storage law ........... 116 (3) The Montana State Water Project .................................. 124 d) Analysis..................................... 129 (1) Montana’s storage right under the Compact .............. 129 (a) Is Montana limited to the volume of stored water that was actually marketed to individual users in 1950?................. 133 (b) Can Montana store more than 32,000 af in a water year?................................ 138 v TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page (2) Impact of the 1999 Reservoir expansion ............................. 141 (3) The Tongue River Reservoir operating rules..................... 144 (4) Storage rights of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe..................................... 157 e) Conclusions ............................... 161 2. Direct-flow rights ........................... 162 a) Montana’s evidence ................... 163 (1) The Book demand model ..... 164 (2) Call letters ............................ 171 (3) Storage releases ................... 172 (4) Testimony of water users..... 173 (5) Testimony of Montana’s principal water managers ... 174 b) Conclusions ............................... 175 E. Post-1950 Uses in Wyoming ............... 176 1. Direct diversions of water for post­ 1950 uses ........................................ 178 a) Use of post-1950 water in 2004 and 2006.................................... 179 b) Post-1950 water use during the notice period .............................. 183 c) Conclusions ............................... 187 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page 2. Post-1950 Storage .......................... 187 a) Compact Reservoirs ................... 189 (1) 2004 post-1950 storage ........ 191 (2) 2006 post-1950 storage ........ 193 b) Fivemile, Wagner, and Padlock Recovery Reservoirs................... 193 c) Other Wyoming reservoirs ........ 196 d) Conclusions ............................... 199 3. CBM-related groundwater extrac­ tion.................................................. 200 a) Can CBM-related groundwater extraction violate the Compact? 201 b) The Compact’s requirements..... 208 c) Analysis of the evidence and expert testimony ........................ 211 4. Summary ......................................... 220 F. Impact at the Stateline ....................... 220 G. Affirmative Defenses ........................... 221 1. Intrastate regulation in Montana . 222 2. Injury to Montana appropriators .. 224 VIII. FUTURE PROCEEDINGS AND MATERIALITY ......................................... 227 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 231 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued APPENDIX Page Appendix A: Proposed Order ......................... A-1 Appendix B: Yellowstone River Compact, Pub. L. No. 82-231, 65 Stat. 663 (1951) ....... B-1 Appendix C: Maps of the Tongue River Watershed..................................................... C-1 Appendix D: Post-1950 Water Consumption in Wyoming ................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Post-1950 Storage in Wyoming During 2004.................................................. E-1 Appendix F: Summary of Findings Regard­ ing the Impact of Wyoming Post-1950 Uses on Stateline Flows in 2004 ........................... F-1 Appendix G: Definition of Key Water Terms G-1 Appendix H: Trial Witnesses ......................... H-1 Appendix I: Docket Sheet ............................... I-1 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Page(s) Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) ................................... 43 Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010) ............................. 54, 57, 53 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................... 27, 68 Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558 (1936) ................................... 19 373 U.S. 546 (1963) ............................... 158, 229 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................... 27 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ..................................... 41 Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383 (1943) ................................... 42 Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176 (1982) ................................... 230 467 U.S. 310 (1984) ................................... 41-42 Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (1931) ................... 41, 42, 228, 229 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ................................... 32 DeFabio v. East Hampton Union Free School Dist., 623 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2010) .. 69 Eastman Kodak Co v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 273 U.S. 359 (1927) .......... 177 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938) ..................................... 19 Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999) ................................... 68 Idaho v. Oregon, 444 U.S. 380 (1980) ................................... 159 J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U.S. 557 (1981) ........................ 177 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907) ......................................... 203 514 U.S. 673 (1995) ..................... 41,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water Rights in Montana Handbook
    April 2014 This document has been updated to reflect Montana statute and rules as of April 2014. Montana Department of Natural Legislative Environmental Resources and Conservation Quality Council P.O. Box 201601 P.O. Box 201704 Helena, MT 59620-1601 Helena, MT 59620-1704 Phone (406) 444-2074 Phone (406) 444-3742 dnrc.mt.gov leg.mt.gov/eqc Montana University System Water Center 23 Faculty Court Montana State University-Bozeman Bozeman, MT 59717-2690 Phone (406) 994-6690 watercenter.montana.edu Acknowledgment Water Rights in Montana is a compilation of two previous citizen guides discussing Montana water rights—the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation’s Water Rights in Montana and the Environmental Quality Council’s and Montana University System Water Center’s Wading into Montana Water Rights. We would like to thank the authors of the latter guide, Michelle Bryan and Professor Gerald L. Westesen, for their significant contribution to this publication. i ii Disclaimer Water Rights in Montana should not be used as a legal reference. When in doubt, always refer to the MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED or the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF MONTANA.1 When making any legal judgments on the adequacy or completeness of procedure, always consult your own legal counsel. 1 Terms that are capitalized and underlined are further defined or explained in the glossary at the end of the publication. iii iv Table of Contents Acknowledgment ....................................................................................... i Disclaimer ................................................................................................. iii Background of Water Rights in Montana .................................................. 1 Montana Water Use Act ............................................................................ 2 Water Rights Administration ..................................................................... 3 Adjudication of Existing Water Rights ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Buyer's Guide to Montana Water Rights
    A Buyer’s Guide To Montana Water Rights By Stan Bradshaw Trout Unlimited, Montana Water Project A Cautionary Tale his tale is based on real events. I’ve just changed the names, details of the water right, the specific facts of the dispute, T and the location to avoid undue embarrassment to anyone. In 2002, Michael Hartman looked at a ranch for sale on a major tributary in the upper Missouri river basin. It was 1100 acres with frontage on a trout stream, and it had an active sprinkler-irrigated hay operation on 160 acres. When Hartmann was negotiating the deal, the realtor produced a water rights document entitled “Statement of Existing Water Right Claim” (“Statement of Claim” for our purposes). It included a water right number, identified a flow rate of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs), and 320 irrigated acres, complete with a legal description of the acres irrigated. It seemed like a great deal—nice property right on a famous trout stream, and a whole lot of water rights to work with. What’s not to like? So he bought it. After moving on to the land, Hartman looked at the acres claimed for irrigation in the Statement of Claim, located the 160 acres that weren’t currently being irrigated, and embarked on plans to start irrigating them. When he walked the land, he didn’t notice any sign of ditches or headgates on the quarter section he wanted to irrigate, but he figured, “Hey, it’s listed on the water right, so I have the water for it.” He approached the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) about cost sharing a new center pivot on the land and putting a pump into the ditch serving the other 160 acres, and they seemed interested.
    [Show full text]
  • Wuomivg LAW REVIEW
    University of Wyoming College of Law WYOMING LAW REVIEW VOLUME 8 2008 NUMBER 2 Published semiannually under the auspices of the University of Wyoming College of Law and the Wyoming State Bar. WYOMING LAW REVIEW Copyright © 2008 by the University of Wyoming All rights reserved. Cover and text printed on acid-free paper manufactured from recycled fiber. To Be Cited As: WYO. L. REV. MEMBER: NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LAW REVIEWS SUBSCRIPTION TERMS: United States ............................................................................................................. $18 per year Elsewhere .................................................................................................................. $19 per year Wyoming State Bar Members .................................................................................... $15 per year Single Issues .............................................................................................................. $10 per issue Back Issues ................................................................................................................ $12 per issue NOTE: There will be an extra charge of 30 cents per issue on single and back orders for subscribers outside the North American Continent. The WYOMING LAW REVIEW follows the custom of other law reviews in automatically billing subscribers in advance for a new year unless notified to the contrary. Subscribers who move or change their mailing address should notify the Law Review office promptly. Issues returned because of an incorrect mailing
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Water Court Aug £ 3 2005 PO Box 1389 Bozeman, MT 59771-1389 1-800-624-3270 (In-State Only) (406) 586-4364 Montana Water Court Fax: (406) 522-4131
    FILED C. Bruce Loble Chief Water Judge Montana Water Court AUg £ 3 2005 PO Box 1389 Bozeman, MT 59771-1389 1-800-624-3270 (In-state only) (406) 586-4364 Montana Water Court Fax: (406) 522-4131 IN THE WATER COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA UPPER MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION *********************************** IN THE MATTER OF THE ADJUDICATION ) CASE NO. WC-2000-02 OF EXISTING AND RESERVED RIGHTS TO ) THE USE OF WATER, BOTH SURFACE AND ) UNDERGROUND, OF THE RED ROCKS ) LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE OF ) THE STATE OF MONTANA ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW APPROVING UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, RED ROCK LAKES-MONTANA COMPACT THIS MATTER came before the Court on a joint motion of the State of Montana and the United States of America for approval of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Rock Lakes - Montana Compact, Montana Code Ann. Section 85-20-801 (2004). Based on the submissions of the State and the United States, the Compact and the record in this case, the Court now issues the following: FINDINGS OF FACT General Adjudication of Water Rights 1. In 1979, the State of Montana commenced a comprehensive, general, state-wide adjudication of the rights to the use of water within the State of Montana, including all federal reserved and appropriative water rights, pursuant to Title 85, Chapter 2 of the Montana Code Annotated. Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission Negotiation 2. In 1979, the Montana Legislature stated its intent that the State of Montana attempt to conclude compacts for the equitable division and apportionment of waters between the state and its people and the federal government claiming reserved waters within the state.
    [Show full text]
  • YRC Spring Meeting
    MEETING NOTES Yellowstone River Compact Commission Technical Committee Spring Meeting Conference Call and Go To Meeting April 12, 2011 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Jodee Pring. 1. Introductions Those on the call introduced themselves to the group. A listing of those participating on the call along with their contact information can be found at the end of these minutes. 2. Additions to Agenda Mary Sexton requested that item 12 on the agenda “Forming discussion for December Commission meeting on Federal Chair role – voting” be moved to the beginning of the agenda. All agreed to this change. 3. Forming discussion for December Commission meeting on Federal Chair role – voting Mark Anderson, Federal Chair, stated he was preparing a presentation to be given at the December full Commission meeting and would like to defer this discussion until that time. Mary Sexton agreed and stated that Montana would bring the information they had concerning this topic to the December meeting. 4. Hydrologic Update - MT and WY USGS Wayne Berkas, with the MT USGS, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the different gages in the basin and discussed each one briefly. Each slide shows the daily discharge from September 2009 to May 2011. For a copy of this presentation, go here. Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, MT Clarks Fork Yellowstone River at Edgar, MT Little Bighorn River near Hardin, MT Bighorn River above Tullock Creek near Bighorn, MT – this gage is currently showing slightly above normal conditions Tongue River at State Line near Decker, MT – this gage is showing some spikes as some early melting has occurred Tongue River at Miles City, MT – last year, the peak flow dropped after the ice came off Powder River at Moorhead, MT – the estimated discharges were verified with discharge measurements Powder River near Locate, MT – after the ice jams came off, the estimated discharges were verified with discharge measurements, this area had a lot of low elevation snow 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2018/2
    Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2018/2 TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Hakemli Dergi Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi - 2009/2 Baş Galatasaray Üniversitesi Yayını No : 91 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi No : 70 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Bilimsel Hakemli Dergidir. Bu esere ilişkin olarak Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu’ndan doğan haklar saklıdır. Burada yer alan makalelerde ileri sürülen görüşler yazarlarına aittir. Yayın Kurulu, makalelerde ileri sürülen görüşlerden dolayı herhangi bir sorumluluk üstlenmemektedir. YAYIN KURULU DANIŞMA KURULU Prof. Dr. Necmi YÜZBAŞIOĞLU (Başkan) Prof. Dr. Baki İlkay ENGİN (İstanbul Üni.) Doç. Dr. E. Eylem AKSOY RETORNAZ Prof. Dr. Cemal Bâli AKAL (İstanbul Bilgi Üni.) Doç. Dr. Tuba AKÇURA KARAMAN Prof. Osman Korkut KANADOĞLU (Girne Üni.) Arş. Gör. Dr. Ali Cenk KESKİN Prof. Dr. M. Turgut ÖZ (Kültür Üni.) Arş. Gör. Dilşad KUĞUOĞLU Prof. Dr. Oktay UYGUN (Yeditepe Üni.) HAKEM KURULU Prof. Dr. Ekrem Ali AKARTÜRK Doç. Dr. Anlam ALTAY Prof. Dr. Mouloud BOUMGHAR Doç. Dr. Serap AMASYA Prof. Dr. Erdoğan BÜLBÜL Doç. Dr. Ebru CEYLAN Prof. Dr. Murat DEVELİOĞLU Doç. Dr. Zeynel KANGAL Prof. Dr. Osman Korkut KANADOĞLU Doç. Dr. Ecehan YEŞİLOVA ARAS Prof. Dr. Emre ÖKTEM Doç. Dr. Didem YILMAZ Prof. Dr. Şule ÖZSOY BOYUNSUZ Doç. Dr. Fülürya YUSUFOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ulvi TÜRKBAĞ Doç. Dr. Saadet YÜKSEL Prof. Dr. Oktay UYGUN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi H. Bige AÇIMUZ Prof. Dr. Samim ÜNAN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Özge AKSOYLU Prof. Dr. Zeynep Özlem ÜSKÜL ENGİN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Nur BOLAYIR Doç. Dr. Olgun AKBULUT Dr. Öğr. Üyesi H. Ali DURAL Doç. Dr. Tuba AKÇURA KARAMAN Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Mehtap İPEK İŞLETEN Doç. Dr. Güçlü AKYÜREK Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Quantifying Tribal Water Rights in North Dakota
    North Dakota Law Review Volume 84 Number 2 Article 5 1-1-2008 The Future of Quantifying Tribal Water Rights in North Dakota Erica Shively Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Shively, Erica (2008) "The Future of Quantifying Tribal Water Rights in North Dakota," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 84 : No. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol84/iss2/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FUTURE OF QUANTIFYING TRIBAL WATER RIGHTS IN NORTH DAKOTA “When we talk about water, we call it mni wiconi, and that means water is life.”1 I. INTRODUCTION While there is no doubt that water is a cornerstone of life,2 water to many North Dakotans has often been both a blessing and a curse.3 From floods, droughts, and the failure of municipal water systems, to arguments both for and against the diversion of water from some of the state’s major bodies, North Dakota is not a stranger to water conflict.4 The disputes have involved the Devils Lake outlet,5 proposals to divert water from the Missouri River to supply the Red River Valley,6 and addressing issues of water shortage in the western part of the state.7 The debates have occurred between neighbors,8 between North Dakota and 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 137, Original IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— October Term 2014 ———— STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendants. ———— SECOND INTERIM REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER (LIABILITY ISSUES) ———— BARTON H. THOMPSON, JR. Special Master Stanford, California December 29, 2014 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................... xxi I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 II. THE RECORD .......................................... 3 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................... 4 A. The Tongue River ................................ 4 B. Tongue River Water Use ..................... 8 1. Wyoming’s use of the Tongue River ............................................... 9 2. Montana’s use of the Tongue River ........................................................ 10 C. The Tongue River Reservoir ............... 12 IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND .......................... 14 A. The Yellowstone River Compact ......... 14 1. Key provisions of the Compact ...... 14 2. Difficulties in administering the Compact .......................................... 18 B. Western Water Law ............................ 18 C. The Northern Cheyenne Compact ...... 22 V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................... 24 A. Montana v. Wyoming, 131 S. Ct. 1765 (2011) ................................................... 25 B. Subsequent Pre-Trial Proceedings ....
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 13 Issue 3 Article 7 1978 Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony Margaret E. Plumb Mary Kay Lundwall Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Plumb, Margaret E. and Lundwall, Mary Kay (1978) "Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 13 : Iss. 3 , pp. 975 - 995. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol13/iss3/7 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Plumb and Lundwall: Wyoming Rules of Evidence 701-706: Opinions and Expert Testimony WYOMING RULES OF EVIDENCE 701-706: OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY In April 1977, the Wyoming Supreme Court adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence as the Wyoming Rules of Evidence, to become effective January 1, 1978. Article VII was adopted without any substantial changes' and the purpose of this Comment is to explore the six rules and their probable ap- plication in Wyoming courts. 2 RULE 701: OPINION TESTIMONY BY LAY WITNESSES Rule 701 provides the standard for opinion testimony by a lay witness. To be admissible, the lay opinion must be "ra- tionally based on the perception of the witness" and it must be "helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." The first requirement of Rule 701 restricts the witness's testimony to matters within his personal knowledge and observation, hence requiring that a competent foundation be laid for the testimony.3 The sec- ond requirement guards against the admission of superfluous opinion testimony and is comparable to a relevancy require- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • Title I—Chippewa Cree Tribe 10 of the Rocky Boy’S Res- 11 Ervation Indian Reserved 12 Water Rights Settlement
    106TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 438 AN ACT To provide for the settlement of the water rights claims of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reserva- tion, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ``Chippewa Cree Tribe 5 of The Rocky Boy's Reservation Indian Reserved Water 6 Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 7 1999''. 2 1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 2 Congress finds thatÐ 3 (1) in fulfillment of its trust responsibility to 4 Indian tribes and to promote tribal sovereignty and 5 economic self-sufficiency, it is the policy of the 6 United States to settle the water rights claims of the 7 tribes without lengthy and costly litigation; 8 (2) the Rocky Boy's Reservation was estab- 9 lished as a homeland for the Chippewa Cree Tribe; 10 (3) adequate water for the Chippewa Cree 11 Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation is important 12 to a permanent, sustainable, and sovereign homeland 13 for the Tribe and its members; 14 (4) the sovereignty of the Chippewa Cree Tribe 15 and the economy of the Reservation depend on the 16 development of the water resources of the Reserva- 17 tion; 18 (5) the planning, design, and construction of 19 the facilities needed to utilize water supplies effec- 20 tively are necessary to the development of a viable 21 Reservation economy and to implementation of the 22 Chippewa Cree-Montana Water Rights Compact; 23 (6) the Rocky Boy's Reservation is located
    [Show full text]
  • Legislature Chugs Into Halftime
    WINTER TROUT LINE 2015 Newsletter from the Montana Council of Trout Unlimited Legislature chugs into halftime Legislators nix he first 45 days of the Montana Legislature were a necessary mining scramble, though the number T by Bruce Farling of measures – and the amount of bonding bill controversy – affecting coldwater fisheries, water quality, instream alk abounds at the current legislative Legislative session about Montanans taking flows and stream access, seems less 2015 Session than previous sessions. The second Tpersonal responsibility and not 45 days will be more telling. Here’s a depending on help from government. Unfortunately, many lawmakers refuse to rundown on some of Montana TU’s HB 525 – Sponsored by Rep. Mark apply this standard to the state’s hard-rock priorities as of March 3: Noland (R-Bigfork). Creates a permanent trust fund for combatting aquatic mining industry. Bills we support invasive species. Passed House, now in Sen. Mary Sheehy Moe (D-Great Falls) the Senate. introduced SB 218, a modest measure HB 140 – Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Wellborn requiring some hard-rock mines – those (R-Dillon). This bill increases resident Bills we oppose with potential to generate highly damaging hunting and fishing fees modestly ($3 HB 519 – Rep. Carl Glimm (R-Kila). acid-mine drainage – to post performance for fishing) while shifting FWP income This torturous, hard-to-understand bonds representing 100 percent of the planning to a 4-year cycle instead of 10 measure, developed by the state’s estimated cost of reclamation plus 50 years. Montana TU supports this so that homebuilders association, does not percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Apportionment Open Educational Resources and Data
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Congressional Apportionment Open Educational Resources and Data 9-2016 Congressional Apportionment: A Liberal Arts Perspective Charles M. Biles Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/apportionment Recommended Citation Biles, Charles M., "Congressional Apportionment: A Liberal Arts Perspective" (2016). Congressional Apportionment. 24. http://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/apportionment/24 This Articles and Essays is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Congressional Apportionment by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Congressional Apportionment: A Liberal Arts Perspective Charles M. Biles, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus Humboldt State University Arcata, CA 20 September 2016 Preface Congressional apportionment of the United States House of Representatives is a popular topic in several liberal arts or general education mathematics textbooks. This work is produced in the belief that any illustrative applications of mathematics should be presented at the same high level as the mathematics. Since congressional apportionment is such a mainstay as a principle example of a mathematical, fixed resource problem, we believe that a more thorough presentation of the topic as it unfolded in American history is in order. Accordingly we dedicate five individual topics under the general heading of apportionment: averages and rounding, the basic divisor method, the quota method, the modified divisor method, and priority computational techniques. This work is intended as an open source endeavor.
    [Show full text]