WSP01888 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0'520 the question of water rights administration on the reservation was raised. In Walton the federal district court found that the state could administer unappropriated water in the basin and on the reservation. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that because there was no impact on water off the basin and because a dual system of administration would cause confusion and harm tribal sovereignty, the state had no role in regulating the system and Walton's state-issued permit was invalid. In an earlier decision involving water rights administration on Indian reservations in Washington, the state's right to regulate ground water pumping on the Lummi Indian Reservation was challenged (U.S. v. Bel Bay Community and Water Association). In Bel Bay a federal district court held in 1978 that Winters covers ground water, the State of Washington disclaimed jurisdiction over Indian reservations in its constitution, and the tribe and federal government should administer water rights on the reservation in the interests of sound management through one jurisdiction. Since aspects of the case are similar to Walton, and since the case was suspended pending the Walton decision, new pleadings are expected (Folk-Williams, 1982). In U.S. v. Anderson (Supra, p. 7) a federal district court awarded the Spokane Tribe reserved rights in Chamokane Creek in 1979. Although the court found the State of Washington had jurisdiction over the water rights of non- Indians on the Spokane Reservation, its award to the tribe amounted to nearly the entire flow of the stream, rendering existing state-issued permits nearly useless and future permits virtually impossible. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision on July 10, 1984, adding, "Any -19-