WSP01888 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fishing as specified in the tribe's treaty with the United States), sufficient to maintain agriculture on their land. It also confirmed that the allottees' water rights could be acquired by subsequent non-Indian purchasers of their land and expanded by the new owners to include land placed under cultivation by exercising reasonable diligence. Interesting, however, the Circuit Court held that the United States, who had purchased a large portion of the reservation for a national forest and wildlife refuge, could not convert' the tribe's hunting and fishing water rights for its own purposes. The lower court had declared it was unnecessary to rule on the quest ion, since the tribe's and the government's purposes for the water were identical. 5. Administration of Water Rights on Indian Reservations The question of who administers water rights within an Indian reservation has also become an issue since Winters. In contention is whether the states administer the rights, whether the tribe does, or if the federal government has a role in the matter by virtue of its trustee relationship with Indian tribes. The issue is further complicated depending on whether the rights are being exercised by Indians or non-Indians, and by the nature of the water source; i.e., an interstate stream flowing through or along a reservation, a stream arising on a reservation, etc. Several court cases have dealt with one or more aspects of water rights administration on Indian reservations. In Walton (Supra, p. 14), which involved a relatively small, closed basin within the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington, the tribes sued to enjoin Walton from irrigating land acquired from Indian a1lottees. Since Walton had been granted a water permit by the state, -18-