My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00897
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00897
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:28:23 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:00:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8410.300.60
Description
Basin Multistate Organizations - Missouri Basin States Association - Reports
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
11/8/1984
Author
MBSA
Title
The Issue of Indian Reserved Water Rights
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />(1 ~ ,. - "',.. <br />111..1 ~ ;"" <br /> <br />the question of water rights administration on the reservation was raised. <br /> <br />In Walton the federal district court fouoo that the state could administer <br /> <br />unappropriated water in the basin and on the reservation. However, the Ninth <br /> <br />Circuit Court of Appeals held that because there was 00 impact on water off <br /> <br />the basin and because a dual system of administration would cause confusion and <br /> <br />harm tribal sovereignty, the state had no role in regulating the system and <br /> <br />WaJton's state-issued permit was invalid. <br /> <br />In an ear Her decision involving water rights administrat ion on Indian <br /> <br />reservations in Washington, the state's right to regulate grouoo water pumping <br /> <br />on the Lummi Indian Reservation was challenged (U.S. v. Bel Bay Community <br /> <br />and Water Association, <br /> <br />). In 1978 a federal distr ict <br /> <br />court held that Winters covers ground water, the State of Washington disclaimed <br /> <br /> <br />jurisdiction over Indian reservations in its constitution, and the tribe and federal <br /> <br /> <br />government should administer water rights on the reservation in the interests of <br /> <br />sound management through one jurisdiction. Since aspects of the case are <br /> <br />similar to Walton, and since the case was suspended pending the Walton <br /> <br />decision, new pleadings are expected (Folk-Williams, 1982). <br /> <br />In U.S. v. Anderson (Supra, p. 7) a federal district court awarded the <br /> <br />Spokane Tribe reserved rights in Chamokane Creek in 1979. Although the court <br /> <br />found the State of Washington had jurisdiction over the water rights of non- <br /> <br />Indians on the Spokane Reservation, its award to the tribe amounted to nearly <br />the entire flow of the stream, rendering existing state-issued perm its nearly <br /> <br />useless and future permits virtually impossible. The Ninth Circuit Court of <br /> <br />Appeals Lphe1d the district court's decision on July 10, 1984, adding, "Any <br /> <br />-19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.