WSP00897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0.. ~ :JQ(l U~ v.. issue should remain closed in the interest of finality, and to open the case would upset the delicate balance of water rights in the Colorado River Basin. He also attributed the earlier omissions as due to the complexity of the original case. It has been speculated that the tribes may now seek monetary damages for the water rights they claim to have lost (Western States Water Council, 1983, Western States Water, Issues 463, 464 and 465). In cases involving .water for nonagricultural uses, Indian tribes have been awarded water rights for the maintenance of fisheries (U.S. v. Anderson ). In the case a federal district court awarded the Spokane Tribe almost the entire flow of Olamokane Creek in the State of Washington for a combination of irrigation and fishery maintenance. In Oregon, a federal district court ruled in 1979 (U.S. v. Adair, 478 F. Supp. 336, D. Oregon, 1979) that hunting and fishing rights of the Klamath Tribe, specified in an 1864 treaty, implied a water right sufficient to maintain fish and wildlife habitat. In Adair the court also established a priority on Indian water rights between instream use for habitat and offstream use for irrigation. The instream use, it found, was paramount in Adair since it supported the traditional tribal lifestyle. The agricultural use was ruled secondary since it was made possible through subsequent federal legislation and the allotment of separate land holdings to individual tribal members. Therefore, the Indian water rights could be exercised for agriculture only insofar as it did not interfere with the instream use. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit essentially confirmed the lower court's ruling but added that the scope of the water right thus reserved for the tribe should be defined in terms of the current hunting and fishing activities of tribal members. The U.S. Supreme -7-