25 U.S.C. § 381
Irrigation lands; regulation of use of water
In cases where the use of water for irrigation is necessary to render the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to secure a just and equal distribution thereof among the Indians residing upon any such reservations; and no other appropriation or grant of water by any riparian proprietor shall be authorized or permitted to the damage of any other riparian proprietor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1936–2026 · leading case: Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 460 F. Supp. 1320 (E.D. Wash. 1978).
Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 460 F. Supp. 1320 (E.D. Wash. 1978). “Section 7 of the Dawes Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 381 ) provides that where water is necessary for irrigation, the, Secretary of Interior is authorized to see that the available water is divided in a just and equal manner among the Indians residing on the reservation.”
Jt. Bd. of Control of Flathead, Mission v. United States, 646 F. Supp. 410 (D. Mont. 1986). “The administration of Indian Irrigation Projects is governed by 25 U.S.C. § 381 , et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.”
South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998). “388 , 25 U. S. C. §381 (Dawes Act), individual members of the Tribe received allotments of reservation land, and the Government then negotiated with the Tribe for the cession of the remaining, unallotted lands.”
United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation Dist., 236 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1956). “No more was required, for the United States has the right to make distribution of its water under such rules as it may adopt, as provided by 25 U.S.C.A. § 381 (note 16, supra). It is no concern of ours which particular parcels or allotments are served by the Indian Service…”
In Re the Crow Water Compact, 2015 MT 217 (Mont. 2015). “After exhausting relief provided under tribal law, Allottees with claims relating to water may seek relief under 25 U.S.C. § 381 (authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to secure a just and equal distribution of water) or any other applicable law.”
Oswalt v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 153 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 381 , provide that the Officer-in-Charge of the irrigation project is responsible for insuring the “equitable use of the water supply” within the irrigation district.”
Katie John v. Alaska Fish & Wildlife Fed, 720 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2013). “The Secretaries also recognize that, typically, “allotments of Indian reservations to individual Indians, as well as the transfer of these allotments to non-Indians, have been found to carry with them a share of the reservation’s [federal reserved water rights] pursuant to…”
Hackford v. Babbitt, 14 F.3d 1457 (10th Cir. 1994). “§ 381 , farther provided: In cases where the use of water for irrigation is necessary to render the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem…”
Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 647 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1981). “nly reference to water rights in the Act is found in section 7: In cases where the use of water for irrigation is necessary to render the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules…”
United States v. Genevieve Pierce, Carrie Pierce McCoy Anna Pierce, Ruth Carmichael Nee Urton, Marcus Pete, Jr., & Elizabeth Pete, 235 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1956). “§ 2201 ]” Conclusion of Law XX: “It is the administrative duty of the Secretary of the Interior ‘to prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to secure a just and equal distribution [of water] among the Indians * * * ’ [ 25 U.S.C. § 381 ; id. §§ 331, 382 et…”
United States v. McIntire, 101 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1939). “In the event that the supply of water was insufficient to furnish that amount, then the provision of the general allotment act requiring “just and equal distribution” of the water ( 25 U.S.C.A. § 381 ) would be applicable. If appellees had been arbitrarily deprived of their…”
United States v. Alexander, 131 F.2d 359 (9th Cir. 1942). “§ 381, provided in part: “In cases where the use of water for irrigation is necessary to render the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.