WSP08496 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.' " -0824 ,.lnU;lr.. 1980) . . Lo~ An<':.l('<. C('IH\1\' l.!'\~' 1.~tm'."" TR.'SSFER.'BIL1TY OF JSVIAS II'A TrR RIGHTS 99 In denying the government's request for ;in injunction. the Supreme Court obsCTved: "[WI hen allotments of land were duly made for exclusi\'e use and thereafter con\'ey~d in fee, the; ight to use some portion of tribal waters essential for cultivation p;,:,.;ed to thc' owners."" Unfortunately, however, the Powers case was de- c,ded on procedural grounds, and the Court did not have the opl:or- lunity to shed any additional light upon the extent of the non- Indians' rig.hts to the use of water upon the former allotment. Kecently, the law with respect to the rig.hts of liansferees of allotted land has become unsettled as a result of the decision in (o/,.il/c Confederated Tribes v. WaltofJ. 4 9 There, the tribes sought to "Iljoin the use of water by Walton, a non-Indian successor in interest to an allotment within the boundaries of the reservation, TIle evidence in the case revealed that the original allottee had not irripted the land, a1~ough he later sold it to another Indian who irrigated 32 acres before selling the land to Walton. Wallon claimed a reserved right for the entire allotment or, in the alternative, for the 3: irrigated acres of land, on the theory that tlie reserved water right is appurtenant to the land and thus passes to non-Indian landowners. TIle state of Washington intervened in order to protect its authority 10 issue state water rig.hts permits within the boundaries of the reser- 'ation and aligned itsel!- with Walton. TIle United States and the tribes took contrary positions on the 'juestion of alienability of the reserved water right. The federal gov- eTllmelH argued that Walton obtained a right to the amount of water being put to use at the time of the transfer, while the tribes con- tc'ndcd that the reserved right was a tribal right. which could not be alienated to a non-Indian. Un persuaded by the contentions of the parties or by the previous holdings in United Stares I'. Hibner and UniJed Slales v. Powers. the (OUrt broke new ground. Although the court agreed that reserved rif:!lls arc appurtenant to allotted land.'o it found that reserved water rights exist for the sole purpose of providing necessary water to '~nsure that the resel"..ation can provide a permanent homeland for the tribes. Consequently, "[wlhen title to Indian lands passes into non-Indian hands, the purposes for which the reserved water rights arl' implied no longer exist. It therefore seems logical to conclude Ih,t reserved water rig.hts on Indian reservations are limited to'ln- ~ans"'5 I 4h. Jd. at 532. '9. 460 r. Supp. 1320 (E-O. Wash. 1978). .sO. Id. at 1326. J9~1. Jr:'. at 1328: see also United SLales v. Anderson. r-.;o. 3643 (E.,D. Wash. July 23, 9" In which th~ court held that the onginal purposes of the reservation cease to exist ....hen lhe lana passes out of Indi:1ll o\\"J1crship.