Opinion ID: 2602225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Reasonable Time Element Dates from Transfer by Original Indian Allottee

Text: [¶ 44] In two of the claims subject to this appeal, the properties were transferred from allotment status into non-Indian ownership, subsequently were sold to Indian purchasers, and then were conveyed again to non-Indian purchasers. The appellants contend the determination of the reasonable time element should run from the most recent conveyance out of Indian ownership. The district court held the calculation of reasonable time begins when the allotted property first passes out of allotment status, and we agree. [¶ 45] As noted above, this court in Big Horn I, 753 P.2d 76, relied, in large part, on the precedent of Walton II, 647 F.2d 42, to hold that non-Indian purchasers of land from Indian allottees obtain reserved water rights. In Walton III, 752 F.2d at 402 (emphasis added), it was made even clearer that the pivotal element was the transfer from the allottee: A careful reading leaves no doubt that the immediate grantee of the original allottee must exercise due diligence to perfect his or her inchoate right to the allottee's ratable share of reserved waters. This interpretation is supported by our reference to Walton II in subsequent cases. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 736 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1984) (use it or lose it); United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394, 1417 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1252, 104 S.Ct. 3536, 82 L.Ed.2d 841 (1984). [¶ 46] In Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 114 (emphasis added), we said: We have already held that a non-Indian purchaser from an Indian allottee obtains a reserved water right with a treaty priority date, and that his non-Indian successor would likewise succeed to the treaty priority date. There is no reason then to deny the same priority to an Indian or tribal purchaser. The clear meaning is that an Indian and/or tribal purchaser from an Indian allottee would obtain the same reserved water right with treaty priority date as a non-Indian purchaser from an Indian allottee. [¶ 47] To hold, as the appellants suggest, that any interim purchase by an Indian would restart the computation of reasonable time would irrevocably undermine the integrity and finality of the water rights adjudication process. There would be no certainty of priority dates because mere repurchase by an Indian successor anywhere in the chain of title would restart the reasonable time. Further, such a holding could, and perhaps invariably would, lead to collusive transactions by those willing to find a straw man [7] for the precise purpose of thwarting established priority dates. Therefore, we affirm this portion of the district court's decision and hold the calculation of reasonable time begins with the immediate grantee of the original allottee.