Ruling Overview
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Calvin C. Hackford lacked standing to sue regarding his interest in the Uintah Irrigation Project and water rights.
1. Standing Under the Ute Partition and Termination Act
-
The court concluded that although Hackford, as a mixed-blood member of the Ute Tribe, had a “right of user” to irrigation water under the Partition Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 677–677aa), this right was tribal in nature and subject to collective regulation—not an individual ownership interest.
-
As a result, Hackford could not insist on personal management control over the Project or avoid fees simply because his rights stemmed from the tribal entity.
-
The Secretary's authority to manage the irrigation system and charge operation and maintenance fees was unimpaired by the Partition Act. JustiaCaseMine
2. Winters Doctrine & Priority Date
-
Hackford claimed a Winters-reserved water right dating back to October 3, 1861 (reservation creation). The court accepted this priority, explaining that allottees, including Hackford, derive their water use rights from the tribe's reserved rights and share the same 1861 priority.
-
Nonetheless, such rights do not permit bypassing the established irrigation infrastructure or associated fees—they remain subject to uniform tribal regulation and project rules. Justia+1
Summary
In essence, the court held that:
-
Hackford had a tribally-derived right of water use but no individualized ownership or management control.
-
The Secretary lawfully exercised authority over the Uintah Irrigation Project, as authorized by federal law and the Partition Act.
-
Thus, Hackford lacked standing to challenge the Project’s governance or to avoid associated fees.