Gate. Hence, the court held that the patent of the plaintiffs predecessor conveyed title to the high water mark only, and that title to land below that mark and beneath the lake is in the United States in trust for the Tribes. Rochester, 127 F.2d at 192-93 ¶18 Forty years later, in Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes v. Namen (9th Cir. 1982), 665 F.2d 951, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 977, 103 S.Ct. 314, 74 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed its holding in Rochester. In Ñamen, the Tribes sued the Ñamen family, owners of Jim’s Marina in Poison, for trespassing on Tribal property by building docks and improvements on Flathead Lake below the high water mark. Namen, 665 F.2d at 953-54. After an exhaustive analysis of the Trea a (D. Mont. 1990), 750 F. Supp. 446 (<HOLDING>). ¶20 Consequently, the Conrads and the Tribes
holding that a property owner who had the right to drain water into a specific lake had a substantial interest in that lakes environmental integrity and thus had a substantial interest in a permit that could alter the drainage into that lake holding that the legislative assembly intended the water right certificate not the permit even when followed by a beneficial use to mark the point at which a water right becomes vested holding that the tribes are the beneficial owners of the south half of flathead lake and that tribal ownership encompasses the lake bed to the high water mark holding lake on private land was not navigable in fact and there was no right of public use and enjoyment as lake was not fed by or part of a navigable stream holding access to property by navigable lake was per se bar to finding of necessity