User talk:V24d139/V24d139's Sandbox

This is a good start and definitely better than what's there right now. While nothing in here is wrong factually, I think there are some areas that need factual expansion, and the entire article needs a topical structure, so it can be easily navigated.

1. We may need some more background on how the issue came to a head

2. How did the U.S. become involved

3. Note that this was held original jurisdiction in the USSC

4. Be careful when addressing water rights as a result of executive orders, though you're correct here—see U.S. v. New Mexico, 1978 and the Cappaert case for later consideration of this question.

5. Structurally, I think you need to set this out more like a case brief. Give us the background, facts, issues, arguments, findings, dictum & dissent, and implications in a clear, linear fashion.

6. There is not a single mention of U.S. v. Winters 1908 in this article.

7. Need a discussion of Prior Appropriations Doctrine to put this case in context—and California Doctrine, which I *think* CA was operating under at the time (combined riparian right and prior appropriation, much like MT at the turn of the century) Chris.arneson (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)