Valley Journal
Valley Journal

This Week’s e-Edition

Current Events

Latest Headlines

What's New?

Send us your news items.

NOTE: All submissions are subject to our Submission Guidelines.

Announcement Forms

Use these forms to send us announcements.

Birth Announcement
Obituary

Walton ruling ‘twisted’

Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local. You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.



Subscribe now to stay in the know!

Already a subscriber? Login now

Editor, 

I have been re-reading Walton (Walton Ninth Circuit Court, or Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton United States). It is a twisted ruling. I was struck by the very last part (below). It did recommend the Supreme Court, not the Compact Commission. 

Excerpt from ruling by United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, argued and submitted June 6, 1980, decided June 1, 1981:

“We are persuaded of the correctness of our analysis and conclusion concerning the transferability of the water rights involved in this litigation. Nevertheless, we recognize that reasonable minds hold conflicting views. State and federal courts, state and federal agencies responsible in water rights administration, and the numerous Indian tribes, allottees and their transferees, are plagued almost on a daily basis with the problems and uncertainties surrounding the issues discussed in this opinion. This case presents an appropriate vehicle for the Supreme Court to give guidance and stability to an area of great unrest and uncertainty in Western water and land law. A definitive resolution is overdue. The magnitude of the problem cannot be overstated.”

Why would one trust such momentous issues to or upon a relatively inexperienced non-objective counsel given birth by the Rosette Law firm? Not only to cover the limited scope of quantified reserved water rights as yet unquantified? But then to venture inappropriately into the no-man’s-land of treaty and aboriginal rights that might be appurtenant to treaty but not reserved? Where the Constitution clearly restricts states from treaty involvement? Where it would appear that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not so bold as to go? See excerpt above. Why indeed?

Christopher Chavasse 

Ronan

Sponsored by: