WSP00897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OG2)fJ'1 rights in state courts. In Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (668 F.2d 1093) and Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Adsit (668 F.2d 1080), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed federal district courts that had dismissed the water rights suits in favor of state court proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that both states had no jurisdiction over Indian water rights since their constitutions and enabling acts relinquished jurisdiction on Indian lands. The states appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the cases. On July I, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the consolida ted cases. It reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that, ". . . whatever limitation the Enabling Acts or federal policy may have originally placed on state-court jurisdiction over Indian water rights, those limitations were removed by the McCarran Amendment" (103 S. Ct. 3201 at 3212). The Court also held that the federal district courts acted properly in dismissing the actions in favor of the state courts: In these cases, assuming that the state adjudications are adequate to quantify the rights at issue in the federal suits, the expertise and administrative machinery available to the state courts, the infancy of the federal suits, the general judicial bias against piecemeal litigation, and the convenience to the parties, the District Courts were correct in deferring to the state proceedings (Ibid at 3215). 4. Transferability of Indian Water RiRhts Winters and other cases recognizing an Indian reserved water right subsequently led to questions concerning the transferability of that right. Did water rights reserved to satisfy the purposes of an Indian reservation pass to tribal members when they were individually allotted portions of reservation lands? If so, what was their share of the reservation's water right? Could an -13-