Opinion ID: 1118319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: What Law Applies to Change of Use

Text: 1. Tribes must seek change of use for future project waters under state lawJustices Macy and Thomas 2. Change of use is not subject to state law; Federal or Tribal law applies; but also states that federal policy of deference to state water law must be respectedJustice Cardine 3. State law does not apply to change of use and not supported by Big Horn I; federal law applies; following Big Horn I, state acknowledged various water uses permitted by Tribes and should now be estopped from changing its position Justices Golden and Brown
1. Diversion not necessaryJustice Macy; Justice Thomas generally agrees; Justices Golden and Brown also agree 2. Future water must first be applied to land before change of use allowed under federal or tribal lawJustice Cardine
1. Beneficial use is key and is seen as an evolving conceptJustice Macy; Justice Thomas generally agrees 2. Future paper right must be applied to beneficial use before allowed to interfere with state appropriators and beneficial use is defined only as irrigation; but determines that beneficial use should be broadly applied to the federal reserved right and therefore allow for instream flow development; disagrees with Justice Macy that change of use must be hamstrung by compliance with Wyoming statutes defining acceptable uses; states that when Indian rights are not in use they may be taken by junior appropriators Justice Cardine 3. Earlier district court decisions in this case by Judges Joffe and Johnson held that Tribes may use water in any manner they deem advisable or to their benefit; this was not reversed by Big Horn I and is now the law of the case;Justices Golden and Brown
Justice Thomas Though he states that instream flow must be accomplished under state law, he intimates that an instream flow right may not be foreclosed to the Tribes. This seems inconsistent with Justice Macy's opinion with which he generally agrees. Justice Macy states that only the state of Wyoming shall own an instream flow right; consequently, the Tribes would not be able to have a dedication even if they went through the state application process. Justice CardineReads Justice Macy's opinion as precluding dedication of existing irrigation rights to instream flow by virtue of the application of Wyo.Stat. § 41-3-1002(e) (1977), though Justice Macy explicitly states that that discussion is left for another day. Justice Cardine defines beneficial use in this context as only meaning irrigation and goes so far as to intimate that instream flow may be wasting water. He takes issue with Justice Macy's conclusion that Wyoming statutes must define acceptable (beneficial) uses and procedures for change of use and states that beneficial use concept must be more broadly construed when applied to federal reserved water rights. However, he creates a condition on any change of use of future rights by concluding they must first be diverted, which is more restrictive than state law and has no support under federal reserved rights law. Justice Macy notes that beneficial use does not require a diversion but is an evolving concept that can be expanded to reflect changes in society's recognition of the value of new uses of our resources. Though Justice Cardine states that change of use is not subject to state law, he also contends that federal deference to state law must be respected, contrary to Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, recognizing that congress did not intend for the states to have this power on federal reservations. Justice Cardine's opinion is apparently based on what he feels ought to be done at this time and advocates the sensitivity doctrine, which was rejected in Big Horn I, believing it unfair to appropriators to stand by and watch the Tribes waste water. He notes that Indian rights not in use may be taken by others with junior rights. The authority cited for this proposition is taken from a treatise published in 1977. However, absent any authority by the authors themselves, this premise appears to be conjecture or speculation.