Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, , <br />.. .-- <br /> <br />The United States District Court for the Distriot of Wyoming in <br />U.S. v. Parkins, 18 F. 2d 642 held that a purchaser of Indian allotment <br />land may not appropriate water for irrigation of his land from an irri- <br />gation ditoh whioh the United States had oonstruoted for the benefit of <br />Indian a1lottees. However, the deoision reoognized that the white owner <br />of the allotment land had a right to water through a Federal reo1amation <br />projeot for the benefit of Indian lands and had neg1eoted to utilize suoh <br />right by his failure to pay projeot maintenanoe oharges. <br /> <br />In aooordanoe with the doctrine that the United States has exo1u- <br />sive jurisdiction of reservation lands unless it has speoified that state <br />statute shall be oontrolling, it has been held (U.S. v. McIntire, 101 F. <br />2d 650 - CCA 9th Cirouit) that an allottee cannot under the state laws <br />relating to the appropriation Of water aoquire any right whatsoever in <br />wate~s reserved for the tribe. <br /> <br />In the oase of U.S. v. Alexander. 131 F. (2d) 359 (CCA 9th Cir.) <br />the United States brought suit to enjOin the ownerS of certain Indian <br />allotments on the Flathead Indian Reservation from diverting water through <br />their privately oonstructed ditohes in exoess of amounts allocated to them <br />and their predecessors by the Seoretary of the Interior. The Government ' <br />oontended that all irrigab1e lands on the reservation, whether allotment <br />or surplus, have equal water rights and that the diversions made by the <br />defendants were in exoess of their pro rata share. The Court held for <br />the defendants saying among other things (131 F. (2d) :;61), <br /> <br />2110 <br /> <br />"Assuming, without expressing an opinion thereon, <br />that the water rights of appellees and those of the <br />unallotted lands were of equal priority, as stated <br />in United States v. MoIntire, 9 Cir., supra, the <br />general allotment aot (25 U.S.C.A. 381) requiring <br />'just and equal distribution' would be applicable <br />here beoause of the insuffioiency of the water <br />su.pp1y. 'fhat stat\J::.e provi<:tes for the promulgation <br />of suoh rules and regulations as the Seoretary of <br />the Interior might deem necessary to secure the <br />just and equal distribution or water. No suoh <br />rules and regulations have been promulgated herein <br />pursuant to that statute. The so-oalled 'seoretaria1 <br />deorees' related to alleged 'private' riGhts and were <br />not of the charaoter required. There not being a <br />rule or regulation, of oourse, a violation thereof <br />could not be shown." <br /> <br />In the oase of Anderson v. Spea::--l,lorgan Livestook Co., 79 P. (2d) <br />667, the Supreme Court of Hontana considered an aotion for the adjudioation <br />of the rights of lessees of Indian allotments to use water diverted from a <br />oertain oreek and used on the allotment lands within the reservation. After <br />quoting Seotion 7 of the General Allotment Aot (25 USCA 381) the Court <br />said (79 P. (2d) 669), <br /> <br />-10- <br />