Opinion ID: 1118319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Joint Administration of the River System

Text: I do not agree that Wyoming law governs the administration of Indian water rights. As we stated in Bighorn I, [t]he role of the state engineer is    not to apply state law, but to enforce the reserved rights as decreed under principles of federal law. 753 P.2d at 115. The scope of the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 et seq., does not change the fact that federal law governs Indian reserved rights. Although suit for administration of water rights in a river system, including reserved rights, may be brought in state court, disputes concerning reserved rights are federal questions which may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. District Court, In and For Eagle County, Colorado, 401 U.S. 520, 526, 91 S.Ct. 998, 1003, 28 L.Ed.2d 278 (1971). Nor do I agree that the State Engineer should administer the tribal water rights to the exclusion of the Tribes. The Indian reserved water is not state water as the majority claims. I would hold that the Indians and the State Engineer jointly administer the water rights on the reservation and, in the event of disagreement, must turn to the court for resolution of their dispute. We may find that ultimately it will be necessary for the court to administer the division and application of this water much as the courts have overseen and affected integration of schools. The parties must adopt a new spirit of cooperation with each other. They must stop this wasteful, expensive, useless litigation and move toward this common goal. The resolution of the administration and use of water urged in this concurring and dissenting opinion charts a reasonable middle ground rather than the win-all and lose-all extremes advocated by the parties in their repeated adversarial confrontations. For the reasons stated, I concur in part and dissent in part.