Court case
Seneca Nation (Kinzua Dam litigation)
Despite the 1794 treaty, a federal appeals court in 1958 let the Allegheny Reservoir flood Seneca land, finding Congress had authorized it.
- Citation
- Seneca Nation of Indians v. Brucker, 262 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (per curiam)unverified
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Cir.
- Year
- 1958
- Nations
- Seneca Nation of Indians (Allegany Reservation) (Haudenosaunee)
- Treaty at issue
- Treaty of Canandaigua (1794), 7 Stat. 44
- Effect on land rights
- eroded
What happened
The Seneca Nation of Indians asked a federal court to stop the construction of the Allegheny Reservoir Project, which would flood a substantial amount of Seneca land. The district court dismissed the complaint.
Both sides agreed on two points. First, the flooding would infringe rights the Seneca acquired by treaty in 1794 (7 Stat. 44). Second, Congress can authorize a taking of land by eminent domain even though a treaty exists. The only question was whether Congress had shown, in a sufficiently clear and specific way, that it meant to do so.
The D.C. Circuit looked at an Act of August 18, 1941 that appropriated $45,000,000 for the Ohio River Basin plan modified to include the Allegheny Reservoir, and at an appropriation in August 1957. The hearings, debate and Senate report on the 1957 bill showed Congress knew that the Seneca lands would be flooded, that the Nation was unwilling to give up any of its rights in them, and that the lands could be taken by eminent domain.
One of New York's senators, Senator Ives, said the action would be "virtually wiping out the Allegheny Reservation of the Seneca Nation." He added that the Government "has the legal right to do what is proposed," but that he was distressed by "the moral responsibility we have." On November 25, 1958, the court, in a short per curiam opinion, held: "We think Congress has authorized the taking of these lands." It affirmed the dismissal.
Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error
What the sources say, and how this was checked
Well supported by the sources below.
We think Congress has authorized the taking of these lands.
Seneca Nation of Indians v. Brucker, 262 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (per curiam) (court opinion text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project)the proposed flooding will infringe Indian rights acquired by treaty in 1794, 7 Stat. 44
Seneca Nation of Indians v. Brucker, 262 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (per curiam) (court opinion text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project)the Government has the legal right to do what is proposed
Seneca Nation of Indians v. Brucker, 262 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (per curiam) (court opinion text via Harvard Caselaw Access Project)
Research notes. The opinion does not say the dam was built or what compensation followed; those facts, and the page note about Pub. L. 89-801, are not asserted here. The quote attributed to Senator Ives is from the opinion's quotation of the Congressional Record.
Who is doing the work
Working with these nations
- Oneida Indian Nation Nation government About 18,000 acres in trust (2022 est.), 25,000-acre cap under 2013 agreement
- Rematriation Native-led Indigenous women-led media, education, community advocacy Give on their site Website
- The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Allied land trust Funder/partner in several tribal land returns Website
Native legal and land defense, nationally
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
- NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.
Connections
Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.
Doctrine applied 3
Nations named 2
- Haudenosaunee (Six Nations)suggested
- Seneca Nation of Indianssuggested
Concerns the instrument 1
Policy era 1
- Termination1953suggested
Decided a dispute over 1
- Canandaigua 1794 and the Kinzua Dam (1958-1965)1958suggested
Sources
The record’s fields
- Holding
- Courts declined to block taking of about 10,000 acres of the Allegany Reservation for Kinzua Dam, treating Congress's later authorization as controlling over the 1794 treaty. Congress later paid compensation and funded relocation.not yet checked against a source
- Kind
- Court case
- Confidence
- High
- Notes
- Some details not yet checked against a source
- Some details unverified