Opinion ID: 2602225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Differential Treatment of Successful Claimants and Unsuccessful Claimants

Text: [¶ 34] The district court found: 8. The Tacking Claimants can not rely upon the diligence of the United States in constructing water conveyances to their property. They may, however rely upon the diligence of the United States under its state permit to provide the Tacking Claimants with a priority date of 1905.... Although the order does not explicitly provide a reason for that conclusion, presumably the court believed such reliance failed to demonstrate the claimants' individual diligence. However, inconsistently, the court held the unsuccessful claimants could rely on the project for their individual diligence under state law. [¶ 35] The district court confirmed the special master's definition of reasonable diligence by finding: This Court is convinced that a better policy would be to address this problem in a two step process. First, proof of irrigation within five years of acquisition raises a presumption of reasonableness. This presumption can be rebutted as there may be cases when water and a means of applying it to the land was readily available during the five years after acquisition but was not applied. The second and more difficult step in this process arises when water is not applied to the land within five years after its sale by the allottee.... Should not reasonableness encompass other factors such as intent, distance and/or obstacles to the water source and diligence? This Court believes that it should. In the event that water is not applied to a beneficial use within five years, the second step would be to look at the due diligence of the allottee's successors in applying water to a beneficial use. The district court further qualified the reasonable time description as follows: There should be no time limit on extensions as measured in days, months or years. It is a factual issue to determine whether the allottee's successors demonstrated that constancy or steadfastness of purpose or labor which is usual with men engaged in like enterprises, and who desire a speedy accomplishment of designs. Each claim must be determined on its own merits. If a claimant can make such a showing, the Court will infer reasonableness regardless of the time period after which the allotment was first sold. [¶ 36] Despite the district court's careful and accurate description of how reasonable diligence should be determined, it rejected the unsuccessful claimants' claims, concluding instead, as a matter of law, they could not rely on the gradual development of the federal project over the ten- to twenty-year period after they acquired title to their allotments. We believe the legally appropriate approach would have been for the district court to follow its own outline for determining reasonable diligence and take the same approach evidenced by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when it applied Washington state due diligence law to ascertain how much of Mr. Walton's acreage had been diligently irrigated and thus was entitled to a reserved right priority date. Walton III, 752 F.2d at 402-03. We conclude the district court incorrectly ignored state law regarding reasonable time and instead found there must be a showing the claimants made an individual effort to irrigate the lands during the time the federal project was under way but incomplete. [¶ 37] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found any restriction on transferability would result in a diminution in value of the Indian's reserved right which must be supported by clear Congressional intent. Walton II, 647 F.2d at 50. Nowhere did Congress indicate its clear intent, nor do we believe it would have so intended, that transferees of allottees needed to meet a more stringent diligence standard than required for all other water right claimants. We find no authority for concluding the reasonable diligence required for a Walton right and that required to maintain a state water right are different in kind or quality. [¶ 38] We are persuaded by the state's argument that a consequence of the district court's order was the successful claimants received preferential and inconsistent treatment as compared to the treatment the unsuccessful claimants received. By way of specific example, we look to two claims, successful Claim No. 250 and unsuccessful Claim No. 243. Claim No. 250, transferred out of allotted status in 1944, was first irrigated by project waters in 1947 and was found to qualify for the reserved priority. Claim No. 243 on the other hand passed out of allotment status in 1923, the project sublateral was available to the land in 1936, and irrigation occurred in 1940. Claim No. 243 was irrigated seven years earlier than Claim No. 250, yet it was denied the Walton right for failure to meet the reasonable time requirement. Still, the unsuccessful claim was deemed to have been developed diligently enough to secure a 1905 priority. We can find no support for such disparate treatment in the federal law of reserved rights. [¶ 39] The state correctly notes the factual distinctions between successful claimants and unsuccessful claimants fell into three categories: (1) The unsuccessful claimants generally had lands transferred out of Indian ownership significantly earlier than the successful claimants, thus increasing the time between allotment transfer and beneficial use; (2) the federal project facilities were not extended to the unsuccessful claimants' lands until later phases of the project were completed, also thereby increasing the time between allotment transfer and beneficial use; and (3) in some instances individual unsuccessful claimants may not have acted diligently to irrigate after the federal project facilities became reasonably available to serve their lands. The state proposes, in order to equalize the reasonable time standard between all claimants, that the unsuccessful claimants be required to demonstrate what lands were put under irrigation with due diligence after the federal project facilities became available to the property. We are persuaded this is the appropriate standard for the unique factual circumstances this dispute presents. [¶ 40] We are dealing in legal fictions intended to impart justice in a reasoned and equitable manner. 2 Kinney, A Treatise on the Law of Irrigation and Water Rights, supra, § 743 at 1285. The project availability standard, for lack of a better term, considers all factors and still requires a showing of the individual diligence of the allottees' successors once water was available. It does not, however, create a different standard for claimants due to either an earlier date or a later date of transfer from allotment status or availability of project water. [¶ 41] The tribes and the United States argue the district court's order must be affirmed because Walton rights must be narrowly interpreted to limit their destabilizing effect. At this juncture, we are talking about seventeen claims in addition to the approximately 200 successful claims. We can reasonably infer the destabilizing effect is minimal. Further, nothing in this opinion expands the nature or quality of Walton rights or reserved rights. Instead, we are simply applying our state law of reasonable time and due diligence to the Walton claimants. We would be remiss if we ignored our state law because of an unfounded fear that our holding somehow erodes federal reserved rights. It does not. [¶ 42] The tribes and the federal government also argue the purpose of the reasonable time requirement for Walton rights is to assure the non-Indian successor intended to make use of the allottee's right to put water to use. This argument is reminiscent of language from Hibner we cited previously that the application of any other rule would permit such grantee for an indefinite period to reclaim the balance of his land and withhold the application of the water to a beneficial use. 27 F.2d at 912. Simply because the non-Indian was forced to wait for this irrigation project, which was well known to the public and proceeding diligently, does not indicate a lack of intent to use the water, nor does it create an indefinite period of delay which may encourage speculation or uncertainty in water rights administration. If the non-Indian successor took individual action diligently once water was available, that is satisfactory evidence of his original intent. [¶ 43] As noted previously, the special master acknowledged in her report that, absent the United States' assistance in constructing the Wind River Irrigation Project, irrigation would not have been possible on any of the Walton claimants' lands. It appears no one contests this determination. If there had been a reasonable means to irrigate any of these properties without the project, the Walton standard and state law would require the irrigation be accomplished through the due diligence of the individual successor to the allottee. We have no intention of altering that requirement by this decision. We hold, under the circumstances of this case and presuming irrigation was not possible absent the project, in order to establish beneficial use of the reserved water within a reasonable time to retain the federal reserved right, the unsuccessful claimants must demonstrate their efforts to put the lands under irrigation within a reasonable time and with due diligence, as defined by state law, after the federal project facilities became available to the properties. We remand for proceedings consistent with this determination. We anticipate such further proceedings should not require substantial additional evidentiary proceedings; however, this is difficult to tell because the record submitted did not provide the special master's report and recommendation for all claims and, for this reason, is incomplete. The district court must decide whether sufficient evidence exists in the record to determine individual claimants did or did not act with reasonable diligence after the federal project water was available to their lands.