Opinion ID: 1118319
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Administration of Water Rights Under Big Horn I

Text: The district court granted the Tribal Water Resources Agency the authority to administer all water rights within the stipulated boundaries of the reservation specifying that non-Indian rights were to be administered according to state water law by the Tribal agency, with appropriate judicial review in state district court pursuant to Title 41 of the Wyoming statutes. Judge Hartman, Judgement and Decree, March 11, 1991 (emphasis added). This decision implicates two distinct concerns: the issue of administration of water rights under Big Horn I and regulation of the water rights of non-Indians on the reservation in light of recent decisions in this area. As mentioned above, in Big Horn I we were careful to distinguish monitoring of the decree from administration. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 115. It is not merely a question of semantics to make this distinction. To administer is to manage or direct as opposed to monitor, which means to watch or check on. Webster's, supra, at 18. It is no accident that this court meant to affirm only the lesser powers of monitoring to the state engineer in Big Horn I. That authority permitted the state engineer to enforce the reserved rights under federal law principles by turning to the court for enforcement against the Tribes if violations were noted. We said: The role of the state engineer is thus not to apply state law, but to enforce the reserved rights as decreed under principles of federal law.    Should the state engineer find that it is the Tribes who are violating the decree, it is clear that he must then turn to the courts for enforcement of the decree against the United States and the Tribes and that he cannot simply close the headgates. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 115. Under the decree, the Tribes were required to first seek protection against state water users from the state engineer before pursuing court assistance. We stated: The decree only requires the United States and the Tribes first to turn to the state engineer to exercise his authority over the state users to protect their reserved water rights before they seek court assistance to enforce their rights; it does not preclude access to the courts. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 115. In the instant case, the Tribes, following the guidelines of Big Horn I, requested that the state engineer enforce their federal reserved water rights by ensuring that their instream flow dedication was fulfilled. Report and Recommendation of the Special Master, October 4, 1990, at 2. The state engineer failed to apply federal reserved water right principles and insisted on applying state water law to the Tribes' request. As a result, the Tribes received no relief and no protection from the state engineer in his role as water master. Their relief came only after bringing suit in district court. The reluctance of the state engineer to enforce the federal reserved water rights has placed an unnecessary burden on the Tribes. I see no reason to continue to insist that the Tribes request relief from the state engineer before pursuing a remedy in district court. The Tribes, in monitoring their reserved rights and all water rights on the reservation, must turn to the court for enforcement against violations by state water users and protection of their federal reserved rights.