## Facts

- The Colville Reservation was established with implied reserved water rights under the Winters doctrine.
- The dispute concerned competing claims to water from the No Name Creek Hydrological System (a spring-fed creek and connected aquifer) that flows into Omak Lake, a saline lake without an outlet.
- Reservation lands in the watershed were allotted under the General Allotment Act; some allotments remained in trust for Indian allottees, while others later passed to non-Indian owners.
- Walton, a non-Indian landowner, acquired multiple former allotments that had passed out of Indian ownership in the 1920s.
- Walton and Indian allottees sought water for irrigation; the Tribe sought additional water to establish and maintain the Omak Lake fishery as spawning grounds for Lahontan cutthroat trout, replacing fishing opportunities lost due to development on the Columbia River.
- Prior rulings recognized a Winters-based reserved right and that a ratable share could pass to Indian allottees and, under limited conditions, to non-Indian successors.
- On remand from an earlier appellate decision, the district court quantified annual allocations as: Walton (384 acre-feet), Indian allottees (428.8 acre-feet), and the Tribe for the fishery (187.2 acre-feet).
- The Tribe appealed, arguing the allocation failed to secure sufficient water for the fishery and over-allocated water to Walton and the allottees relative to lawful entitlements.

## Issues

1. Whether the Tribe held a reserved right to sufficient water from the No Name Creek system to establish and maintain the Omak Lake fishery as a reservation purpose.
2. Whether Indian allottees’ reserved water rights could be reduced based on non-use.
3. Whether a non-Indian successor’s share of reserved water could exceed the amount historically put to beneficial use with reasonable diligence.
4. How shortages should be handled when the system cannot satisfy all quantified rights.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s allocation and remanded for recalculation.
- The court held the district court failed to protect the Tribe’s reserved right to adequate water for the fishery.
- The court held the district court erred by reducing Indian allottees’ reserved water rights based on non-use.
- The court held Walton’s entitlement was limited to the amount actually appropriated and developed with reasonable diligence by him and his predecessors, and the district court awarded him too much.
- The court instructed that, if supply is insufficient, allocations must be adjusted proportionately among the Tribe, allottees, and Walton consistent with their recognized rights.

## Legal Principles

- Under Winters, creation of a reservation impliedly reserves sufficient water to fulfill reservation purposes, and such reserved rights are senior to later-acquired uses.
- A reservation’s reserved irrigation right may be shared in ratable fashion with Indian allottees, keyed to irrigable acreage, and may pass in limited form to non-Indian successors.
- Indian allottees’ reserved water rights are not forfeited or reduced merely by non-use when quantified as part of the reserved right associated with allotted lands.
- Non-Indian successors acquire only a derivative share constrained by actual beneficial use developed with reasonable diligence; they do not automatically obtain the full theoretical reserved entitlement for all irrigable acreage owned.
- Where hydrologic limits prevent full satisfaction of all quantified rights, courts may require proportionate reductions among all recognized claimants.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s implementation of reserved-rights sharing in the No Name Creek system, requiring a new allocation that secures enough water for the Tribe’s fishery purpose, restores allottees’ shares without nonuse reductions, limits a non-Indian successor to diligently developed beneficial use, and applies proportional cutbacks during shortages.


Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 752 F.2d 397 (9th Cir. 1985)