WSPP00097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. .,....;- The Secretary of the Interior had authority (Act 1887) to prescribe rules and regulations deemed necessary to secure just and equal distribution of waters. It does not appear that he ever undertook so to do. Certainly he could not authorize unjust and unequal distribution. The statute itself Clearly indicates Congressional recognition of equal rights among resident Indians." The Powers case thus holds that when allotments of land were fully made for emlusive use and thereafter conveyed in fee, the right to use some portion of tribal waters essential to cultivation passed to the owner of the allotted land, including both the allottees and those who took from them by conveyance or by purchase of land of deceased a110ttees at Government sales. The oase of U.S. v. Hibner, 27 F. (2d) 909 (DC Idaho) was an action brought by the United States to determine the rights of certain Indians to water under the Fort Bridger Treaty. Among other things the Court considered the rights of those who are successors of Indian lands, saying (27 F. (2d) 912), 2108 "This question is not free from difficulty for it pre- sents for consideration what is the status of the water ri~hts of those who have acquired by purchase their lands from the Indians whose ri~hts were reserved unto them, and who became vested with all the rights incident to ownership of both the lands and water under the treaties, with a priority of Febru- ary 16, 1869. The right of the Indians tc occupy, use, and sell both their lands and water is now recognized, as this view is sustained in the case of Skeem v. U.S. , supra, and, such being the case, a purchaser of such land and "later rights acquires, as under other sales, the title and rights held by the Indians, and that there should be awarded to such purchaser the same charaoter of water right with equal prior- ity as those of the Indians. The status of the water right after it has passed to others by the Indians seems to be somewhat different from while such right is retained by the Indians, because the principle invoked by the oourts for the protection of the Indian as long as he retains title to his lands does not prevail and apply to the white man, and the reason for so holding is that there was reserved unto the Indians the absolute right to ffiTIl and use in their own way the water for their lands, while the white man, as soon as he be- cernes the owner of the Indian lands, is subject to those general rules of law governing the appropriation and use ,of the public waters of the state, and would, as grantee of the Indian allotments, be entitled to a water right for the actual acreage that was under irrigation at the time title passed from the Indians, and such increased aoreage as he might with reasonable diligence place under irrigation, whioh would give to him, under the dootrine of relation, the same priority as -12-