WSP00897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

purpose of providing necessary water to ensure that the reservation can provide a permanent homeland for the tribes. Consequently, '(w)hen title to Indian lands passes into ron- Indian hands, the purposes for which the reserved water rights are implied ro longer exist. It therefore seems logical to conclude that reserved water rights on Indian reservations are limited to Indians.' Based upon that reasoning, the court denied Walton his reserved right, but granted him a right to irrigate 32 acres, with a priority elate equal to the date that the water had first been put to use. Finally, the court held that, when an allotment is transferred to ron-Indian ownership, the purpose for the implied reservation of water is defeated, and that portion of the Winters water right does not inure to the benefit of the tribe, but is lost completely. The Walton decision cannot be said to represent a clear<ut victory to any of the principals in the case, and its precedential value is limited by its curious reversal of prior decisions which hold that Indian water rights are appurtenant to the land within the Indian reservation. Apparently, the court was heavily influenced by its conclusion that the reserved right is a personal right created solely for the use of the tribes, a conClusion which the court reached after analyzing the rationale behind the Winters doctrine. This element of the Walton decision transcends the facts of the case, for it isolates the real significance of a Winters water right - that it is created for and limited to the purpose of satisfying water needs within the boundaries of the reservation. (Palma, 1980, pp. 99-100, footrotes omitted). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed many of portions of the lower court's ruling in Walton and remanded the case for quantification of Walton's water right. The Western States Water reviewed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and the lower court's subsequent action in the following manner: On August 31 (Ed. 1983), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington handed down its opinion in the remanded portion of Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton. The Circuit Court held that the tribes had a reserved right to the quantity of water necessary to maintain Omak Lake as a fishery and to maintain spawning grounds for a non-native species of fish. The court further held that an Indian allottee may sell his reserved water right to another Indian or non-Indian and that the purchaser acquires a water right, with a date of reservation priority date, to water he appropriates with reasonable diligence after passage of title. The court also held invalid Walton's -16-