Opinion ID: 389584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the tribe's water rights

Text: 18 The Colvilles argue they have a right to use the waters of the No Name system under the implied-reservation, or Winters doctrine. We first consider the existence and the extent of that right.
19 Congress has the power to reserve unappropriated water for use on appurtenant lands withdrawn from the public domain for specific federal purposes. United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 698, 98 S.Ct. 3012, 3013, 57 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1978). Where water is needed to accomplish those purposes, a reservation of appurtenant water is implied. Id. at 700, 98 S.Ct. at 3014; Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 139, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2069, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976). The United States acquires a water right vesting on the date the reservation was created, and superior to the rights of subsequent appropriators. Cappaert, 436 U.S. at 138, 96 S.Ct. at 2069. 20 An implied reservation of water for an Indian reservation will be found where it is necessary to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. In United States v. Winters, 207 U.S. 564, 576, 28 S.Ct. 207, 211, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908), the Court found an implied reservation because the land of the Fort Belknap reservation would have been valueless without water. Similarly, an implied reservation was found where water was essential to the life of the Indian people. Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 599, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 1497, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963). 21 In those cases, if water had not been reserved, it would have been subject to appropriation by non-Indians under state law. Because the Indians were not in a position, either economically or in terms of their development of farming skills, to compete with non-Indians for water rights, it was reasonable to conclude that Congress intended to reserve water for them. 7 22 The Colvilles were in a similar position when their reservation was created. As in Winters, the Indians relinquished extensive land and water holdings when the reservation was created. Some gave up valuable tracts with extensive improvements. Note 2, supra. 23 Congress intended to deal fairly with the Indians by reserving waters without which their lands would be useless. Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 600, 83 S.Ct. at 1497. We hold that water was reserved when the Colville Reservation was created.
24 The more difficult question concerns the amount of water reserved. In determining the extent of an implied reservation of water for a national forest, the Supreme Court held: 25 Where water is necessary to fulfill the very purposes for which a federal reservation was created, it is reasonable to conclude, even in the face of Congress' express deference to state water law in other areas, that the United States intended to reserve the necessary water. Where water is only valuable for a secondary use of the reservation, however, there arises the contrary inference that Congress intended, consistent with its other views, that the United States would acquire water in the same manner as any other public or private appropriator. 26 United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. at 702, 98 S.Ct. at 3015. 27 We apply the New Mexico test here. The specific purposes of an Indian reservation, however, were often unarticulated. 8 The general purpose, to provide a home for the Indians, is a broad one and must be liberally construed. 9 We are mindful that the reservation was created for the Indians, not for the benefit of the government. 28 To identify the purposes for which the Colville Reservation was created, we consider the document and circumstances surrounding its creation, and the history of the Indians for whom it was created. We also consider their need to maintain themselves under changed circumstances. 10 See United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381, 25 S.Ct. 662, 664, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905). 29 These factors demonstrate that one purpose for creating this reservation was to provide a homeland for the Indians to maintain their agrarian society. In a similar setting, the Supreme Court agreed with a Master's finding that water was reserved to meet future as well as present needs, and concluded that the only feasible and fair way by which reserved water for the reservation can be measured is irrigable acreage. Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. at 600-01, 83 S.Ct. at 1497-98. We conclude that, when the Colville reservation was created, sufficient appurtenant water was reserved to permit irrigation of all practicably irrigable acreage on the reservation. 30 Providing for a land-based agrarian society, however, was not the only purpose for creating the reservation. The Colvilles traditionally fished for both salmon and trout. Like other Pacific Northwest Indians, fishing was of economic and religious importance to them. See Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 665, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 3064, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1978); United States v. Winans, supra; (1871) Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 277. 31 The Tribe's principal historic fishing grounds on the Columbia River have been destroyed by dams. The Indians have established replacement fishing grounds in Omak Lake by planting a non-indigenous trout. 32 We agree with the district court that preservation of the tribe's access to fishing grounds was one purpose for the creation of the Colville Reservation. Under the circumstances, we find an implied reservation of water from No Name Creek for the development and maintenance of replacement fishing grounds. 33 We note that the nature of a right to water for a replacement fishery is such that it cannot coexist with continuing rights to water for a fishery in the watershed where the fishery historically existed. Walton does not argue that the tribe has such rights. We affirm the district court's holding that the Colvilles have a reserved right to the quantity of water necessary to maintain the Omak Lake Fishery.
34 The district court held that water for spawning could not be awarded at this time because the federal government provides the necessary fingerlings. We reverse this holding. 35 The right to water to establish and maintain the Omak Lake Fishery includes the right to sufficient water to permit natural spawning of the trout. When the Tribe has a vested property right in reserved water, it may use it in any lawful manner. As a result, subsequent acts making the historically intended use of the water unnecessary do not divest the Tribe of the right to the water. 36 We recognize that open-ended water rights are a growing source of conflict and uncertainty in the West. Until their extent is determined, state-created water rights cannot be relied on by property owners. See Laird, The Winters Cloud Over the Rockies: Water Rights and the Development of Western Energy Resources, 7 Am. Indian L.Rev. 15 (1979); Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nations Lands, 144 (1970). 37 Resolution of the problem is found in quantifying reserved water rights, not in limiting their use. The Special Master in Arizona v. California determined that the purposes for which the reservation was created governed the quantification of reserved water, but not the use of such water: 38 This (method of quantifying water rights) does not necessarily mean, however, that water reserved for Indian Reservations may not be used for purposes other than agricultural and related uses The measurement used in defining the magnitude of the water rights is the amount of water necessary for agriculture and related purposes because this was the initial purpose of the reservation, but the decree establishes a property right which the United States may utilize or dispose of for the benefit of the Indians as the relevant law may allow. 39 Report from Simon H. Rifkind, Special master, to the Supreme Court 265-66 (December 5, 1960) (emphasis added). 40 The Department of the Interior has taken the position that a change of use is permissible. See Memorandum from Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to the Secretary of the Interior, February 1, 1964 (use of reserved water for recreation and housing development). 41 Finally, we note that permitting the Indians to determine how to use reserved water is consistent with the general purpose for the creation of an Indian reservation providing a homeland for the survival and growth of the Indians and their way of life.
42 We agree with the district court that water for Allotment 526 need not be included in its calculations, since such water is potentially available from Omak Creek. 11 The Indians have not demonstrated that water is unavailable from Omak Creek, or that its use involves significant disadvantages. 12