Opinion ID: 2639108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Phase III Procedures

Text: [¶ 45] The state and the United States argue the Stutzmans' claims likewise are barred by the terms of the district court's Phase III procedures governing the remaining aspects of the Big Horn general adjudication. Those procedures established deadlines by which the parties were required to act to preserve their rights. In interpreting and applying these procedures, it is helpful to understand the purpose of the litigation initiated by the state in 1977. The Special Master's Report (the Roncalio Report) contains an interesting and informative discussion concerning the historical background of the litigation. It describes the history of the Winters doctrine, which established that the United States reserved certain water rights for the benefit of the Indian tribes thereby placing in jeopardy any state water rights located on or downstream from an Indian reservation. The report states, [i]t was obvious that an adjudication was at last necessary which would once and for all quantify, define, and integrate the rights of all people, Indian and non-Indian, to the use of waters in Water Division 3. [¶ 46] The original complaint filed in the general adjudication contains broad, sweeping language describing the scope of the litigation, claiming: 1. This is a suit for the general adjudication of the nature, extent, and relative priority of the water rights of all persons in the Big Horn River System ... and all other sources in Water Division Number Three....