Opinion ID: 751394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: PUD's condemnation action

Text: 81 In Kalispel II, the court held that PUD may not condemn tribal lands embraced in a reservation under the Power Act or any other federal statute, and may not take the land of individual Indian allottees through inverse condemnation. 28 F.3d at 1548 (citations omitted). The court noted, however, that PUD may be able to condemn land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of individual Indian allottees under 25 U.S.C. § 357. Id. at 1551-52. 82 After remand, PUD asserted a counterclaim to condemn the allotted lands. The district court granted the United States' and Tribe's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the claim. 83 Lands allotted to individual Indians may generally be alienated under 25 U.S.C. § 357, which provides: 84 Lands allotted in severalty to Indians may be condemned for any public purpose under the laws of the State or Territory where located in the same manner as land owned in fee may be condemned, and the money awarded as damages shall be paid to the allottee. 85 The United States and the Tribe argue that § 357 was repealed by the Federal Power Act, which in §§ 4(e) and 10(e) require that the utility obtain a license from the United States for the use of its lands, and pay reasonable charges for the use of Indian lands. The district court concluded that § 357 had not been repealed by the FPA. Lands of individual Indian allottees could be obtained for a power project either through condemnation under § 357, or by obtaining a license and paying an annual charge. See Southern Cal. Edison v. Rice, 685 F.2d 354, 356 (9th Cir.1982) (no special protection against condemnation for allotted lands). 86 But the continued vitality of § 357 is largely irrelevant to the disposition of this case, because under the circumstances here the statute cannot be used to condemn the lands. The United States retains a proprietary interest in the allotted lands. Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 385, 59 S.Ct. 292, 293-94, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939). The consent of the United States is required before the lands can be condemned. See Rice, 685 F.2d at 357. The United States, a party to this appeal strongly opposing PUD's condemnation of the land, certainly does not consent. Nor does FPC v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 80 S.Ct. 543, 4 L.Ed.2d 584 (1960) help PUD, because PUD has no license issued by the Commission. Id. at 100, 123, 80 S.Ct. at 545, 557. PUD cannot condemn the Indian allotted lands. 87 The district court did not err in granting summary judgment dismissing PUD's counterclaim for condemnation.