WSP08485

• File Number: 8062
• Description: Federal Water Rights
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 9/16/1981
• Author: USDOI
• Title: Federal Non-Reserved Water Rights - United States Compliance with State Law
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.

0049

.

- 8 -

.

far at least as may be necessary for the beneficial uses of the Governmental
proptrty.4~/ In so rulln~ tne Court upheld Ne~ ~ex1co's conrrol of state water;
except to tne: limirt:d extent it interfered with tne navigati0n 6ervitude.:.2..

Shunlyafter the Rio Grande Da", decision, the Court applied the "beneficial
use uf GoverIllllent ;>ropeny" exc"ption to create the reserved right doctrine in
the cas" of "inters v. United States.40/ Winters involved the interpretation
of an agree:nenr between the United Sr.ates ana the Fort BelKnap Indian Tribe
to resolve a dispute over water rights between the tribes and a private appro-
priator. The Court found Congress' intent in creating the Fort belknap reser-
vation was to assist in transforming the Indians into a "pastoral and civilized
people..' Tne Court acknowledged that irrigation was necessary to fulfill the
purpose of the reservation by making the lands productive. Without irrigation,
the prinClpal purpose of the reservation would have been frustrated. In hold-
ing that Congress had implicitly reserved water for the Indian reservation, the
Court r"lied upon the rule of construction that ambiguities are to be resolved
in favor of the Indians..::2/ Only with the assistance of this rule applicable
specifica:ly to Indians did the Court ultimately conclude that the "power of
the Gover~ent to reserve the waters and exempt them from appropriation under
the state laws" for use on the Government property had been implicitly exer-
cised.4!j/ The Coun left intact tne well-recognized congressional deference
to state wat"r laws in all but the most limited circumstances.

For over half a century, the "lIinters doctrine" was construed as a limited
exception to the congressional deference to state control of water and appli-
cable only to Indian water rights.~/ In 1963, the Supreme Court broadened the
reserved rights doctrine in Arizona v. Californi.501 holding the "principle
underlying the reservation of water rights was equally applicable to other
federal establishments," speci fically in that case wildlife refuges, national
recreation areas, and national forests. Notwithstanding this expansion of
lIinters, the Court viewed this broadening not as a revocation or renunciation
of the general deference to state water laws, but rather as an acknowledgment
of Congress' power to control water where necessary to fulfill the original
purpose of a reservation. In narrowly deciding the issues, the Court specifi-

44/ Id. at 7u3. See, Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in tne Nineteen Western
StateS;- Vol [1], Ch. 21(1977).

45/ 174 U.S. at 7U~.
46/ 207 U.S. 564 (1908).

47/ Id. at 570-577, See also, United States v. Winans, 190 U.S. 371 (1905);
G;lville Conf. Tribes v. Walton, __ F.2d ___, ____ (9to Cir., 19!j0).

4!j/ Id.

~/ Trelease, aupra, note 38 at 10S.

~/ 373 U.S. 546 (1963).