1982-01-15 Char-Koosta News

              PABLO, MONTANA 59855 ISSN: 0528-8592
Chief Chario     M wM Wk -<  'W^^A^k Chief Koostatoh1
NEWSPAPER OF THE SAUSH, PEND d'OREILLE AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD INDIAN RESERVATION , WESTERN MONTANA
VOLUME 10 NUMBER 17 NEW MOON OF THE WANDERING JANUARY 15,1982
Tribes' authority over the south end of Flathead Lake confirmed
The latest development in the eight-year-old Namen case Two more years later, in 1977, the Tribes' suit and the city's
was announced January 11: the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of and state's were lumped into one issue.
Appeals ruled that the Tribes can regulate docks, structures Later in 1977, the United States, as trustee of the Tribes,
and breakwaters bordering the south end of Flathead Lake, filed a separate suit against Poison and Montana, opposing
even if such things are owned by non-Indians. The ruling the diminishment notion. Further, the government sought a
overturns a 1980 decision that said the Tribes had no such ruling that the Tribes had the authority to regulate the use of
authority. land and water comprising the south end of Flathead Lake.
The case goes back to 1973 when the Tribes sued James Three years pass. In April of 1980, the court made three
Namen, who owns a marina in Poison. Two years later, the decisions about the issues: 1) the U.S. holds title to the bed
city of Poison and the state of Montana filed suit  to and banks of the south half of the lake in trust for the Tribes;
terminate the Flathead Reservation. Their contention was 2) the Reservation was not dissolved in 1904; and 3) the
that an act of Congress in 1904, which divided the Reser- Tribes did not have the authority to regulate riparian rights,
vation into parcels, alloting some to Indians and later some (Riparian pertains to the bank of a body of water.) No one
to non-Indians, intended to dissolve the Reservation. was completely satisfied with the decision; everyone ap-
——^—————————————— pealed to a higher court.
Quarterly was brief, well-attended. . . Nearly two years later, the appellate court reaffirmed
D Kl     17  1                 *                     *¦ points 1 and 2, and reversed point 3.
PablO, relSman Win tOp SpOtS Tribal reaction to the victory is muted. There's one court
left with the power to change the January 11 decision~the
Tribal Council Chambers in Pablo were surprisingly full u