According to the U.S. Forest Service’s “U.S. Treaty Rights & Responsibilities” Federally-funded Analysis, as well-established U.S. Common Law under The Prior Appropriations Doctrine: DAPL has “Junior Water Rights” (under a wholly-invalid COLORABLE CLAIM), & Tribes and all others downstream from DAPL have “Senior Water Rights”, explained below:
The following PDF includes highlighted sections which are especially relevant to this case from the U.S. Forest Service’s “U.S. Treaty Rights & Responsibilities” Federally-funded Analysis (located may be accessed HERE: http://www.fs.fed.us/people/tribal/trib-2.pdf):
As mentioned in the above PDF, the
This page is in-the-making!
“The United States obtained the vast majority of public domain land in the lower 48 States by signing treaties with Indian tribes. The Federal/Tribal relationship is one often described as a guardian/ward relationship.
American Indian treaties were not a grant of rights to tribes, but rather a grant of rights from tribes, with the Indian tribes retaining all of the powers and rights of sovereign nations granted by the tribe pursuant to the treaty or taken from the tribe by Federal statute.
The Supreme Court has found that treaties are superior to State laws, including State constitutions, and are accorded equal status with Federal statutes. Treaty Rights on The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) provides that treaties National Forest are equal to Federal laws and are binding on states as the supreme law of System Lands the land.
: page 41
: page 43
: page 44