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

Heading: Removal of the State Engineer; Abuse of Discretion

Text: The duties of the state engineer are prescribed by the Wyoming Constitution, which states in part: There shall be a state engineer who shall be appointed by the governor   . He shall be president of the board of control, and shall have general supervision of the waters of the state   . Wyo. Const. art. 8, § 5 (emphasis added). The general supervisory powers granted the state engineer under Wyo. Const. art. 8, § 5, were not intended to give unlimited and uncontrolled authority. State By and Through Christopulos v. Husky Oil, 575 P.2d 262, 264 n.6 (Wyo.1978). Justice Macy argues that to allow the Tribal Water Resources Agency to administer water useage on the reservation violates the Wyoming Constitution: The water of all natural streams, springs, lakes or other collections of still water, within the boundaries of the state, are hereby declared to be the property of the state. Wyo. Const. art. 8, § 1 (emphasis added). However, in Big Horn I, this court stated: The decree does not violate state law. The provision in the Amended Judgment and Decree does not purport to give full ownership of the reserved water to the State. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 114 (emphasis added). Justice Macy cites the following sentence, providing his own emphasis, to lend support to his argument for restriction of the Tribes' reserved water right in Big Horn I: The government may reserve water from appropriation under state law for use on the lands set aside for an Indian reservation. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 94 (emphasis added by Justice Macy). The Big Horn court, however, provided no such emphasis in this cite which was originally taken from Winters. The Winters' Court specifically stated: The power of the Government to reserve the waters and exempt them from appropriation under the state laws is not denied, and could not be. Winters, 207 U.S. at 577, 28 S.Ct. at 212, 52 L.Ed. at 346-47 (citing United States v. Rio Grande Ditch & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 702, 19 S.Ct. 770, 774, 43 L.Ed. 1136, 1141 (1899); United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905)). Justice Macy chooses not only to conveniently ignore the clear intent of the United States Supreme Court in Winters from which these words are taken, but to portend an interpretation from Big Horn I that is clearly in error and did not exist. I reject the argument that the reserved water is the property of the state and the state engineer thus must have control. The reserved water rights of the Tribes are not within the boundaries of the state but are within the boundaries of the reservation. The characteristics and nature of Indian reserved water rights are different from state water rights. The determination of the priority date of Indian reserved water is not based on actual use by the Indians. Montana ex rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 219 Mont. 76, 712 P.2d 754, 767 (1985). Nor can these rights be abandoned for non-use. Id., 712 P.2d at 768. The right to reserved water by the Tribes vested at the time of creation of the reservation and title to the right is held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of the Indians. Joseph R. Membrino, Indian Reserved Water Rights, Federalism and the Trust Responsibility, 27 Land & Water L.Rev. 1, 2 (1992). Indian ownership of the reserved water rights is supported by the Wyoming Constitution: Ownership of certain lands disclaimed; restriction on taxation of nonresidents. The people inhabitating this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands laying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States and that said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States   . Wyo. Const. art. 21, § 26 (emphasis added). These Indian reserved waters are not state property. The state does not claim ownership of the federal reserved waters of Yellowstone which lay within the boundaries of Wyoming, nor can it assert such ownership to the reserved waters of the reservation. Despite Justice Macy's assertion, this claim is not supported by the Wyoming Constitution: Water being essential to industrial prosperity, of limited amount, and easy of diversion from its natural channels, its control must be in the state, which, in providing for its use, shall equally guard all the various interests involved. Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 31 (emphasis added). This section was intended to confer control over those waters in which the state has a role in providing for its use. The state does not provide for the use of reserved water rights on the reservation; thus, the application of this constitutional provision to the Indian reserved rights is inapposite. In Big Horn I, we looked to the state engineer to provide incidental monitoring of Indian reserved water rights on the reservation and cautioned against reference to this conduct as constituting administration. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 115. The clear intent of Big Horn I was to permit the state engineer to monitor the use of water on the reservation, not to administer state law to the use of reserved rights by the Indians. Big Horn I, at 115. We stated: The decree entered in the instant case does not require application of state water law to the Indian reservation. The decree recognizes reserved water rights based on federal law. 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. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 115 (emphasis added). It is unequivocal from this earlier discussion that the state engineer is not to act in his constitutionally appointed role as the state engineer but to provide monitoring or oversight of the reserved rights awarded by decree. We stated that an independent water master might properly be appointed at this time to administer the decree and in light of the state engineer's limited authority. The Treaty of 1868 prohibits only unauthorized persons from entering the reservation, but the state engineer would be an authorized person upon his appointment to monitor the decree and could properly enter the reservation. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 115 (emphasis added). The district court appointed the state engineer as an officer of the court to act, in essence, as a water master to monitor the reserved rights decree. The prerogative of the district court to appoint a master is not only established in general law, but is expressly provided by W.R.C.P. 53. Palm v. Palm, 784 P.2d 1365, 1369 (Wyo. 1989) A master by definition is a person very skilled and able in some work, profession, science, etc; expert. A master in the legal context becomes any of several court officers appointed to assist the judge by hearing evidence, reporting on certain matters, etc. Webster's New World Dictionary 873 (2d College ed. 1978). As water master of the water rights on the reservation, the state engineer is to monitor the reserved rights and contemplate neither the application of state law nor the authority to deprive the Tribes of water without the assistance of the courts in a suit for the administration of the decree. Big Horn I, 753 P.2d at 115. The state's response to the Tribes' Motion For Order to Show Cause Why Further Relief Should Not Be Granted attached an affidavit of the state engineer which concluded that the Tribes' instream flow permit could not be recognized for failure of the Tribes to request approval of the state engineer for a change of use. Report and Recommendation of the Special Master, October 4, 1990, at 3. The special master noted in his Conclusions of Law, as did the district court in its Findings of Fact, that the role of the state engineer was to enforce the Tribes' reserved water rights under principles of federal law. Id. at 20; Judge Hartman, Judgment and Decree at 15 (March 11, 1991). Though finding that the state engineer's acts were not contemptuous, the district court's act authorizing the Tribes to administer the water rights on the reservation effectively removed the state engineer from those duties. Judge Hartman, Judgement and Decree at 17 (March 11, 1991). The district court's decision to replace the state engineer in his role as water master with the Tribal Water Resources Agency removed him not from his constitutionally protected duties to apply state law as a state engineer, but from his duties as a water master to monitor the decree. The broad discretion granted the district court to appoint a master under Wyo.R.Civ.P. 53 must confer discretion to remove the master if the law is not applied as decreed. I would hold that the state engineer did not act as instructed by Big Horn I and that removal was appropriate exercise of the district court's discretion. I find it difficult to fathom how the state engineer could have sufficiently executed the role of impartial water master while acting as the state's chief negotiator in talks with the Tribes over water issues and at the same time retaining the constitutional duty to protect the waters of the state.