In Re the Crow Water Compact
354 P.3d 1217
Mont.2015Background
- The Crow Water Compact (agreement among Crow Tribe, United States, and State of Montana) quantifies the Tribe’s reserved Winters water rights, provides payments and administration, and was ratified by Montana (1999), the Tribe (2011), and Congress via the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act (2010).
- The Settlement Act states the Tribal right is held in trust by the United States "for the use and benefit of the Tribe and the allottees," and guarantees allottees a "just and equitable allocation" from the tribal right.
- The Compact required the Montana Water Court to enter a final decree incorporating Article III and Appendix 1 rights; Montana law limits the Water Court’s review of compacts and requires inclusion of compact terms in preliminary decrees absent sustained objections.
- In 2012 the Water Court issued a preliminary decree; about 100 objections were filed, including by a group of Crow Allottees asserting they hold distinct allottee water rights, that the U.S. inadequately represented them in negotiations, and that a "current use" list was required before decree entry.
- The Water Court dismissed the Allottees’ objections and denied a stay, concluding (1) Allottees’ water-use claims derive from the Tribe’s reserved right and allocation issues are for the Secretary/Tribe to administer, (2) the United States represented Allottees in negotiations, triggering limited review (fraud/collusion/overreaching standard), and (3) absence of a current-use list is not a prerequisite to decree entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Water Court erred by not applying Rule 12(b)(6) when dismissing objections | Allottees: objections must be taken as true and reviewed under Rule 12(b)(6) | State/Tribe/US: Rule 12(b)(6) for complaints; Water Court need not apply it to compact objections | Court: Rule 12(b)(6) not required; Water Court did not err |
| Whether Water Court should have stayed proceedings pending Allottees' federal suit | Allottees: stay required while their federal claims (inadequate representation, fiduciary breach) are resolved | Defendants: delay risks repeal of Act; Water Court has jurisdiction and discretion to proceed | Court: denial of stay not an abuse of discretion given statutory time constraints and settlement finality |
| Whether Allottees hold individual reserved water rights separate from Tribal Winters right | Allottees: allottee rights appurtenant to allotments and distinct from Tribe’s reserved right | Defendants: Allottee uses derive from Tribe’s Winters right and entitlement is to allocation from Tribal right | Court: Allottees’ rights derive from Tribe’s reserved right; allocation issues not for Water Court at this stage |
| Whether the U.S. inadequately represented Allottees and whether lack of current-use list precludes decree | Allottees: United States failed to represent them; current-use list needed before decree | Defendants: United States represented allottees in negotiations; compact ratifications make list non-prerequisite to decree | Court: representation finding appropriate; review limited to fraud/collusion/overreaching standard; current-use list not required for decree |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Powers, 305 U.S. 527 (determines allottee use is derived from tribal reserved rights)
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir.) (court review of negotiated settlements is limited; challenge requires showing fraud, collusion, or overreaching)
- Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (establishes federal reserved water rights doctrine)
- Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 712 P.2d 754 (Mont.) (Montana courts serve as an appropriate forum under McCarran Amendment and must follow federal law in reserved-rights adjudications)