United States v.

Adair
Background
-Klamath Indians hunted, fished and foraged in Klamath Marsh & Williamson River for 1,000 years Treaty *1864: entered into treaty w/ US relinquishing aboriginal claim to 12 million acres in exchange for a reservation of 800,000 acres, which included the Marsh and a large tracts of Williamson river Article I: Klamath had exclusive right to hunt, fish and gather on reservation. Article II: provided funds for Klamath to adopt agricultural way of life. The Allotment Act *1887: Allotment Act passed 25% of tribal land was granted to individual Indians in fee Many individual allotments passed to non-Indian ownership

The Klamath Termination Act *Tribe members could give up interest in tribal property for cash large majority did *US purchased much of former reservation and remainder placed in trust for remaining tribe members *1973: to complete the Termination Act, US condemned most tribal land held in trust Reservation extinguished as source of tribal property
-US still held title to much of former reservation lands -1958: govt purchased 15,000 acres of Klamath Marsh in former reservation to establish bird refuge -1961 & 1973: govt purchased more of former reservation - became part of Winema National Forest -After purchases, govt owned 70% of former reservation lands balance of reservation in private, Indian and non-Indian ownership

United States v. Adair

Issue & Holdings
Issue: Did hunting and fishing rights carry an implied reservation of water rights? Holding #1 *Rights to water for hunting and fishing is a non-consumptive right *The holder of these rights has right to prevent others from depleting waters below a protected level
Holding #2 *Hunting and fishing rights survived the termination of the reservation

United States v. Adair

Holdings, Continued
Holding #3 *Treaties creating reservations are grants from tribe to federal govt and reserve for tribes the rights not granted *Treaty w/ tribe reserved lands that became the reservation *Provisions in treaty looked at in light most favorable to tribe -tribe would not have reserved the land and given up the rights to water for traditional uses -Uses carry a date of time immemorial *The amount of water appropriated is not the same as it would have been when treaty enacted in 1864 *Tribe should have amount of water necessary for current use