University of Idaho College of Law

Interrogatories requested by the defendants, William and Jeanne Walton for the Colville Confederated Tribe

Price, Richard B.

UIdaho Law
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law
Confederate Colville Tribes v. Walton (Colville
Tribes) Hedden-Nicely
1-12-1971
Interrogatories by defendants propounded to
plaintiff
Richard B. Price
Nansen and Price Attorneys at Law
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/walton
This Correspondence is brought to you for free and open access by the Hedden-Nicely at Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Confederate Colville Tribes v. Walton (Colville Tribes) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more
information, please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu.
Recommended Citation
Price, Richard B., "Interrogatories by defendants propounded to plaintiff " (1971). Confederate Colville Tribes v. Walton (Colville Tribes).
2.
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/walton/2
1 NANSEN & PRICE 
P.o. Box o 
2 Omak, l-lashington 98841 
509 826-0420 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
. 15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
NORTHERN DIVISION 
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES, 
Plaintiff, 
0 
I 
I 
Q 
No. 3421 
FlLED IN THE 
U. S. DiSTRiCT COURT 
[~.d ':"' :·.:. ";.: .. ; ('= !~f ,..:.: ·f 
"" ..... _,,, ;.,i .......... ···' ''~.::t:Jf'i[.;On 
J/I.N 12 1971 
J. R. FALLQUIST, Clerk 
~~/7? 
·--·······-·--!:~-~-.:.-~ .. Deputy 
vs. I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
INTERROGATORIES BY DEFENDANTS 
PROPOUNDED TO PLAINT IFF 
WILLIAM BOYD WALTON and KENNA 
JEANNE WALTON, his wife, 
Defendants. 
TO: COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES: 
Please take notice that the defendants herein request that the. 
following interrogatories be answered under oath by any one of your 
officers or officials competent to testify in your behalf who know the 
facts and law about which inquiry is made and that the answers be served 
on defendants within 30 days from the date of service hereof, all pursuant 
to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
Interrogatory No. 1. lfuat is the status (legal title) of the 
property asserted to be owned by plaintiff over which certain waters are 
asserted to flow? 
Interrogatory No. 2. If any of the property asserted to be owned 
by plaintiff has been allotted or deeded, please list names and dates 
regarding any such conveyances or transferso 
Interrogatory No. 3o Has any person requested of the plaintiff, 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or other agency that said property be 
NANSEN & PRICE 
-1-
l!~oftot:~~&E-f+ 
AttornctF-at Law 
POST OFFICE BOX 0 
OMAK. WASHINGTON 98841 
TELEPHONE 826·0420 
... 
1 allot ted or conveyed in fee to them'/ 
2 Interrogatory No. 4. If the answer to No. 3 is affirmative, please 
3 list the names of any such persons, the date of the request, and the 
4 current status of such request. 
5 Interrogatory No. So Is there a discernable channel or bed through 
6 which the water flows over the land in the particular Section, Township, 
7 and Range claimed to be damaged? 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
Interrogatory Noo 6. What is the average flow of water across the 
land, in cubic feet per second, during the following periods:: 
Period (avg.) 
March 
June 
Sept. 
Dec. 
May 
Augo 
Novo 
Febo 
Cu. ft. per sec. 
Interrogatory No. 7. l~at was the flow of water across the land, 
in cubic feet per second, during the following periods in 1970 - 71'1 
Period (197D-71) 
March 
June 
Sept. 
Deco 
May 
Aug. 
Novo 
Feb (approximate) 
au. ft. per sec. 
Interrogatory No. So What is the topography of the land owned by 
plaintiff adjacent to the water flow? (i.e. level, steep hillside, 
rolling hill, etc.) 
Interrogatory No. 9. What type of soil adjoins the water flow? 
(i.e. sand, rock, etc.) 
Interrogatory NoolO. Is the channel or creek bed, if there is one, 
a clean cut or is it overgrown and in poor repair so as to impede the 
flow of any water coming through it? 
Interrogatory No. llo Has any attempt been made by plaintiff to 
improve the channel or bed of the creek, or to actually create a channel 
or bed through which a source of water from above could flow? 
Interrogatory No. 12. If the answer to the above is affirmative, 
NANSEN & PRICE 
-2-
~~l:"'l't"":"~"N"S"'e"N"' 
Attorncr&zt Law 
POST OFFICE BOX 0 
OMAK, WASHINGTON 98841 
TELEPHONE 826·0420 
1 please list the dates when any improvement or development was attempted, 
2 the nature of the improvement or development, and the names of all those 
3 persons involved. 
4 Interrogatory No. 13. What are the sources of supply that provide a 
5 water flow over plaintiff's land? 
6 Interrogatory No. 14. ~at other alternative sources of supply 
7 are there available for beneficial application to the adjacent land? 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
Interrogatory No. 15o What effort has plaintiff made to locate 
or provide alternative sources of water supply for beneficial use on the 
land in question?· 
Interrogatory No. 16. What underground sources of water supply 
are available in this area and is there anough to adequately supply the 
land area in question, in terms of beneficial use of that land? 
Interrogatory No. 17. What beneficial use of the land will be 
deterred at the present from the lack of water flowing on to plaintiff's 
land? 
Interrogatory No. 18 0 Exactly what use is being made of the land 
adjacent to the water flow? 
Interrogatory No. 19. Exactly how many acres are under cultivation 
on plaintiff's land adjacent to the w~r flow? 
Interrogatory No. 20. Exactly how many of the acres listed 
immediately above are irrigated from the water flow complained about? 
Interrogatory No. 21. From what source is water being supplied to 
irrigate those acres under cultivation not supplied by the water flow 
complained about? 
Interrogatory No. 22o How many irrigable acres does plaintiff 
own that can be beneficially irrigated from the water flow? 
Interrogatory Noo 23o How many pumps, and what horse power of 
pumps would be required to supply the number of acres listed in answer to 
No. 22 above? 
-3-
-E~!~,.,~N~1CE 
Attornet,Szt Law 
POST OFFICE BOX 0 
OMAK. WASHINGTON 98841 
TELEPHONE 826·0420 
1 Interrogatory No, 24. How many of the last fifteen years 
2 has the entire flow, of those waters complained about, been inadequate to 
3 reach plaintiff's land? 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
Interrogatory No, 25. List those years in which the flow did 
not reach your land and indicate from what other sources water was obtained 
to supply those lands under cultivation, 
Interrogatory No, 26, Explain the nature of the irreparable damage 
being incurred by virtue of the lack of water complained about, 
Interrogatory No. 27o To your knowledge, how long has the water 
been beneficially applied to land now owned by defendants? 
Interrogatory No, 28, In terms of cubic feet per second, how 
much water does plaintiff assert the right to during the following 
periods: 
Period each year (future) 
March 
June 
Sept, 
Dec, 
- May 
Au go 
Nov, 
Febo 
Cu, ft, per sec, 
Interrogatory No, 29o Please set forth in detail the factual 
19 situation and legal theory or theories applied thereto from which you 
20 assert the right to those quantities of water listed in Noo 28 or to any 
21 water from this creek at all, 
22 Interrogatory No, 30, h'hat water rights are acquired by an 
23 Indian to whom reservation land has been allotted? 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
Interrogatory No, 3lo l~at water rights are acquired by an Indian 
who receives fee simple title from the U,S. Government to heretofore 
reservation land? 
Interrogatory No, 32, If plaintiff claims that water rights do ~ 
vest in the allottee or Indian receiving fee simple title, explain what the 
disposition of the water rights is with regard to these situations and the 
legal theory upon which your opinion is basedo 
Interrogatory No, 33, If plaintiff claims that water rights do 
-4-
NANSEN & PRICE 
-s~~;a-..v-~ 
Attorncj;at Law 
POST OFFICE BOX 0 
OMAK. WASHINGTON 98841 
TELEPHONE 826·0420 
II 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
vest in the allottee or Indian receiving fee simple title, explain 
what the disposition of water rights is upon the transfer of such land to 
a non-Indian and the legal theory supporting such disposition. 
Interrogatory No. 34. By what Act, Treaty, Agreement, transaction, 
or otherwise did plaintiff derive title to the following described tracts 
of land now owned by defendants: 
1) W% W% W\ NE~ Sec. 21, Twp. 33 N. R. 27 E.W.Mo 
E% N~ tt .. .. .. .. " .. . 
2) W% w~ H% SEt tt " .. .. .. .. II 
E~ SWt II .. " •• " " tt 
3) SEt SE\ ) 
) 
E% SW~ SE\ ) II .. .. II " .. " ) 
E% W% SWt SE\ ) 
W% NEt Sec. 28, Twp. 33 N. R. 27 E.W.M. 
Interrogatory No. 35. What water rights, if any, were acquired 
by plaintiff when it derived title to the above described land and how were 
those water rights acquired? 
Interrogatory No. 36. List the chain of title in terms of 
allotments, or other trust olmership of the above described lands, including 
therein names and dates, up through such time as plaintiff was fully 
divested of any legal or beneficial interest in the above described lands. 
Interrogatory No. 37. ~ith regard to the transaction divesting 
plaintiff of all legal interest in the above described tracts, indicate 
the disposition of any water rights theretofore claimed by plaintiff in 
said lands. 
Interrogatory No. 38. By what Act, Treaty, Agreement, transaction 
or otherwise did plaintiff derive title to land in Section 33, Township 
33 North, Range 27 E.W.M. claimed to be owned by it? 
Interrogatory No. 39. "!hat water rights, if any, were acquired by 
plaintiff when it derived title to the above described land and how were 
those water rights acquired? 
-5-
NANSEN & PRICE 
lioAoAoi.~-.N~ 
Attorn$ at Law 
POST OFFICE BOX 0 
OMAK. WASHINGTON 98841 
TELEPHONE 826·0420 
. 0 .. 
1 Interrogatory No. 40o What is the extent of the water rights 
2 claimed, if any, in answer to Interrogatory No. 39 above? 
3 Interrogatory Noo 4lo If a specified amount of water is asserted in 
4 answer to Interrogatory No. 40, indicate the legal theory for such 
5 position. 
6 Interrogatory No. 42o Give the name and addresses of the witnesses 
7 you intend to call at the trial and state what you propose to prove by 
8 these witnesseso 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
Interrogatory Noo 43. Give the name and addresses of expert 
witnesses you intend to call at the trial and specify the subject matter, 
the substance of facts and conclusions, and a summary of grounds from 
which and about which each expert is expected to testify. 
Interrogatory No. 44. Please furnish or list by item and make 
available for copying all documents, exhibits, and written material 
you intend to use and offer in evidence at the trial of this action. 
NANSEN & PRICE 
Attorneys for Defendants 
By~/J.~ 
-6-
Richard B. Price 
NANSEN & PRICE 
~~P$X~li~~ 
Attorney at Law 
POST OFFICE BOX 0 
OMAK. WASHINGTON 96641 
TELEPHONE 626-0420 
1 NANSEN & PRICE 
P.o. Box 0 
2 Omak, '~ashington 98841 
509 8 26-0420 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED 
VSo 
UNITED STI TES DISTRlCT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF HASHINGTON 
NORTHERN DIVISION 
TRIBES, 0 
0 
Plaintiff, 0 Noo 3421 
I 
0 AFFiiJAVIT OF MAILIHG 
WILLIAM BOYD WALTON and KENNA 0 
JeANNE \.fALTON, his \-life, a 
D 
Defendants. I 
STATE OF HASHI NGT1)N I 
ss 
County of Okanogan I 
MONA H. SHARPLESS, being first duly sworn, on oath, depose s and 
s ays: that she is competent to be a witness; on the 6th day of January, 
1971, she did cause to be deposited in the United States mail at the post 
office at Omak, 1/a shington, with postage pr e paid, an envelope containi ng 
a true cppy of the Interrogatories by Defendants Propounded to Plaintiff 
in the above entitled action, addressed as follows: 
Mr. Thomas H. s. Brucker 
Stern, Gayton, Neubauer & Brucker 
7th Floor Hoge Building 
Seattle, ' .Ashington 98104 
:;~2?2&y&/ 
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on January 6, 1971. 
Notary ~ublic in and for the State 
of \-lashington, r e siding at Omak 
EAR L K. NANSE N 
A ttor ney at Lnu, 
P O S T O FFI CE BOX 0 
OM AK. WAS HING TON 988 11 1 
TEL EPH O N E 826 ·0 4 20 


English

Interrogatories by defendants propounded to plaintiff

Burnett, Donald L., Jr.

An Historical Analysis of the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act

Indian Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Rights: The Record and the Controversy

Thomas H. S . Brucker, Attorney for Plaintiff, Complaint from September 15, 197

Brucker, Thomas H. S.

UIdaho Law
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law
Confederate Colville Tribes v. Walton (Colville
Tribes) Hedden-Nicely
9-15-1970
Complaint for permanent injunction
Thomas H. S. Brucker
Law Offices STERN, GAYTON, NEUBAUER & BRUCKER
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/walton
This Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Hedden-Nicely at Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Confederate Colville Tribes v. Walton (Colville Tribes) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information,
please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu.
Recommended Citation
Brucker, Thomas H. S., "Complaint for permanent injunction" (1970). Confederate Colville Tribes v. Walton (Colville Tribes). 1.
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/walton/1
(J) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
sl 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
3l 
32 
STERN, GAYTON, NEUBAUER & BRUCKER 
Thomas H. s. Brucker 
710 Hoge Building 
Seattle, Washington 98104 
MAin 2-7050 
F!U:c: iN THE 
U. S. C' r·····::;·:cT C'Cr __ :;:;-r 
L:~~t . ;t; r:;: · ·· ~- . · ·,:In 
J. R. FALLC)UIST, C/ork 
-----------------~-------- Dcpuh· 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 
NORTHERN DIVISION 
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
BOYD WALTON, JR., and JANE DOE 
WALTON, his wife, 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Defendants. ) 
__________________________________) 
NO. 3421. 
COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 
INJUNCTION 
COMES NOW the plaintiff, and for claim for relief 
against the defendants, alleges as follows: 
I 
The plaintiff is a confederation of Indian tribes with 
a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of Interior, and 
is entitled to bring this action in this Court by virtue of 
28 u.s.c. 1362, in that the claimed for relief arises under the 
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States of America. 
II 
Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of land within its 
reservation, including lakes, rivers, streams and creeks. 
III 
The defendants are non-Indians, and are appropriating 
the entire flow of certain waters on Section 33, Township 33 North, 
Range 27 E., owned by the plaintiff, without authority from the 
plaintiff, and are devoting this water to non-Indian use, caus~ 
ing irreparable injury to the plaintiff. 
LAWOPFICES 
STERN, GAYTON 
NEUBAUER 8: BRUCKER 
7TH FLOOR HOG!l: BUILDING 
SlrATTLS, WASHINGTON DOtOC 
MAIM2·701SO 
" ... 
1 I V 
2 The plai ntiff has no plai n, speedy, and adequate remedy 
3 at law because the defendant will continue to violate the wate r 
4 rights of the p lainti ff unless permanentl y enjoined from so doing . 
5 WHEREFORE , the plaintiff prays that the defendants be 
6 forever en joined from interfering in any manner whatsoever with 
7 the waters owned by t he p laintiff. 
8 STERN, GAYTON , NEUBAUER & BRUCKER 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
THSB:j l 
9/14/70 
Thomas H. S . Brucker 
Attorney for Plaintiff 
- 2 -


Complaint for permanent injunction

Findings of Fact before the Indian Claims Commissio

Watkins, Arthur V.

Holt, Wm. H.

Scott, T. Harold

UIdaho Law
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law
United States v. Anderson (Spokane Tribe) Hedden-Nicely
2-21-1967
Brief of Natural Resources in Opposition to
Plaintiff 's Opening Briefs, Appendix A
Arthur V. Watkins
Chief Commissioner
Wm. H. Holt
Associate Commissioner
T. Harold Scott
Associate Commissioner
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/anderson
This Memorandum Opinion is brought to you for free and open access by the Hedden-Nicely at Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted
for inclusion in United States v. Anderson (Spokane Tribe) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information,
please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu.
Recommended Citation
Watkins, Arthur V.; Holt, Wm. H.; and Scott, T. Harold, "Brief of Natural Resources in Opposition to Plaintiff 's Opening Briefs,
Appendix A" (1967). United States v. Anderson (Spokane Tribe). 19.
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/anderson/19


































































Brief of Natural Resources in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Opening Briefs, Appendix A

UIdaho Law
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law
Hedden-Nicely Collection, All Hedden-Nicely
2-21-1967
Brief of Natural Resources in Opposition to
Plaintiff 's Opening Briefs, Appendix A
Arthur V. Watkins
Chief Commissioner
Wm. H. Holt
Associate Commissioner
T. Harold Scott
Associate Commissioner
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/all
This Memorandum Opinion is brought to you for free and open access by the Hedden-Nicely at Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Hedden-Nicely Collection, All by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please
contact annablaine@uidaho.edu.
Recommended Citation
Watkins, Arthur V.; Holt, Wm. H.; and Scott, T. Harold, "Brief of Natural Resources in Opposition to Plaintiff 's Opening Briefs,
Appendix A" (1967). Hedden-Nicely Collection, All. 257.
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/all/257


































































University of Idaho

Not a member yet

Interrogatories by defendants propounded to plaintiff

An Historical Analysis of the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act

Indian Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Rights: The Record and the Controversy

Complaint for permanent injunction

Brief of Natural Resources in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Opening Briefs, Appendix A

Brief of Natural Resources in Opposition to Plaintiff\u27s Opening Briefs, Appendix A

17,275

17,616