## Facts

- The United States sued in federal district court to adjudicate water rights in the Chamokane Basin, acting for itself and as trustee for the Spokane Tribe; the Tribe intervened as a plaintiff.
- The Chamokane Basin includes Chamokane Creek, its tributaries, and associated groundwater; the creek flows along and through portions of the Spokane Indian Reservation before discharging into the Spokane River.
- Reservation land ownership was mixed due to federal allotment and surplus-land policies: some lands remained in trust, some allotments passed into fee (often non-Indian) ownership, and some lands were later reacquired by the Tribe and returned to trust status.
- The district court entered a basin-wide judgment that, among other things, appointed a water master and resolved priority and regulatory issues.
- The district court ruled (1) that water rights appurtenant to lands that had left trust status and were later reacquired by the Tribe had priority dates as of reacquisition, and (2) that Washington could regulate water use by non-Indians on non-Indian fee lands within the reservation.
- The United States and the Tribe appealed those determinations.

## Issues

1. Whether water rights appurtenant to reservation lands that left trust status and were later reacquired by the Tribe retain the original reservation-date priority or instead take a priority date as of reacquisition.
2. Whether Washington may exercise regulatory jurisdiction over excess water use by non-Indians on non-Indian fee lands within the reservation, consistent with federal and tribal interests.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court upheld the district court’s basic approach that reacquired lands do not automatically regain the original reservation-date priority; the rights generally take priority as of reacquisition, subject to limits tied to quantification and administration.
- The court approved Washington’s authority to regulate excess water use by non-Indians on non-Indian fee lands within the reservation, so long as federal and tribal reserved rights are protected.
- The court reversed aspects of the judgment to refine how certain priorities and quantities were set and directed further proceedings consistent with its framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under the federal reserved-rights doctrine, creation of an Indian reservation implies reservation of sufficient water to fulfill reservation purposes, with a priority no later than the reservation’s establishment.
- When reservation lands leave trust status and later return to tribal trust through reacquisition, reserved water rights for those parcels need not revert to the original reservation-date priority; courts may assign a later priority date and impose quantification constraints.
- In assessing reacquired-land claims, courts may consider reliance interests and established uses by non-Indian appropriators in a basin-wide allocation.
- States may exercise regulatory authority over non-Indian water use on non-Indian fee lands within reservation boundaries where not preempted and where regulation does not impair protected federal and tribal reserved rights.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit treated the Tribe’s reacquisition of former reservation lands as supporting enforceable water rights but generally with priority dating from reacquisition rather than the reservation’s creation, and it sustained Washington’s power to regulate non-Indian water use on non-Indian fee lands within the reservation subject to protection of federal and tribal reserved entitlements.


United States v. Anderson, 736 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1984)