Lexplug logoLexplug

Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
647 F.2d 42 (1981)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state lacks authority to regulate a water system located entirely within an Indian reservation. A non-Indian successor to an Indian allottee acquires a ratable share of the tribe's federally reserved water rights, with a priority date as of the reservation's creation, but this right is subject to forfeiture through non-use.


Facts:

  • In 1872, President Grant created the Colville Reservation by Executive Order for the Colville Confederated Tribes, an agrarian people who also relied on fishing.
  • The No Name Creek hydrological system, a non-navigable water source, is located entirely within the boundaries of the reservation.
  • In 1917, several parcels of land within the No Name Creek watershed were allotted to individual Indians under the General Allotment Act.
  • Boyd Walton, a non-Indian, purchased three of these allotted parcels in 1948 from an Indian who had already been irrigating 32 acres of the land.
  • Immediately after his purchase, Walton obtained a permit from the State of Washington to irrigate 65 acres and subsequently began irrigating 104 acres for agricultural, domestic, and stock purposes.
  • The Colville Confederated Tribes hold the remaining allotments in the watershed, either in trust or through beneficial ownership.
  • After historic salmon runs were destroyed by dams on the Columbia River, the Tribe established a replacement trout fishery in 1968 in Omak Lake, which is fed by No Name Creek.
  • The trout require fresh water from No Name Creek to spawn, but increased irrigation use by Walton depleted the creek's flow during the spawning season.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Colville Confederated Tribes sued Boyd Walton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to enjoin his use of water from the No Name Creek system.
  • The United States filed a separate suit against Walton, which was consolidated with the Tribe's case.
  • The State of Washington intervened as a defendant to assert its regulatory authority over water on the reservation.
  • The trial court held that the Tribe had reserved rights for irrigation but not for its fishery, that Walton was not entitled to any reserved water, and that the State could regulate any water not subject to the Tribe's reserved rights.
  • The Colville Confederated Tribes (as appellant), Boyd Walton (as appellant), and the State of Washington (as appellant) all appealed unfavorable aspects of the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does state law, rather than federal reserved water rights doctrine, govern the allocation of water on an Indian reservation to a non-Indian owner of former allotment land, thereby allowing the state to issue valid water permits for such use?


Opinions:

Majority - Wright, Circuit Judge

No. State law does not govern the allocation of water on an Indian reservation to a non-Indian owner; federal reserved water rights doctrine controls. The creation of the Colville Reservation preempted state regulation of the No Name Creek system because the water source is located entirely within the reservation's boundaries. The Tribe's reserved water rights, established under the Winters doctrine, are sufficient to fulfill the reservation's purposes, which include both agriculture (quantified by practicably irrigable acreage) and the preservation of fishing. This includes a right to water for the Tribe's modern replacement fishery, and the Tribe may use this water for natural spawning regardless of whether the federal government provides fingerlings. As a successor to an Indian allottee, Walton acquired a ratable share of these federal reserved water rights, with a priority date of the reservation's creation in 1872. However, this right is limited to the amount of water he appropriated with reasonable diligence and continues to use; unlike the Tribe's rights, it can be lost through non-use. Consequently, the water permits issued by the State of Washington are of no force and effect.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the complex jurisdictional hierarchy over water resources located entirely within Indian reservations, firmly establishing federal preemption over state regulatory authority. It affirms the flexible nature of the Winters doctrine, allowing reserved water rights to be quantified not only for historical purposes like agriculture but also for modern needs, such as replacement fisheries, ensuring tribal viability. Critically, the court creates a hybrid water right for non-Indian successors to allotted lands, granting them the valuable, early priority date of the federal reservation while subjecting them to the state-law principle of forfeiture for non-use. This holding complicates water rights administration in the West by invalidating state permits on reservations but also creating a distinct category of federal water rights for non-Indian users.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton (1981) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton