<br />'.~:\
<br />, ,
<br />.
<br />0821
<br />
<br />. .
<br />
<br />""
<br />
<br />s.~ n"R.~L RESOl'RCLSjOL"RM/; 1\'01. 20
<br />
<br />\"l'Sled aprropri~tors. Such exploitation of thes,' Indian w~ter rights
<br />",. sale or leasc to others for use off the reser-cation would surely
<br />'la"" a de"astating effect upon the non-Indian economy. In b~lancing
<br />r'le' e~uity of limiting Indi~n water rights to thc original intcnt
<br />a~~inst ti,e harsh impact of off-reservation use upon non-Indi~n
<br />w~tcr users. one finds support for a restrictive vie..,. of lI'inters rights.
<br />While the United States Supreme Court has rejected a "b~lancin~
<br />of the equities" approach rC$pecting the creatiol/ of reserved
<br />riehts." there is support for the proposition that c~uit~ble consider-
<br />Jlions should limit the "cope of reserved rights." Those con-
<br />siderations necessarily weigh against pcrmitting the disruption of
<br />existing agricultural economics throughout the West by allowing the
<br />wholesale peddling of Wi11lers water rights for use outside the bound-
<br />aries of the reservation.
<br />
<br />TR--"i\SFER.-\.BIlITY WITHIN THE BOL'i':DARlES OF.THE RESERV ATlO~
<br />
<br />.-\ different situation presents itself with respect to the transfer~bil-
<br />ity of Indian water rights to new uses within the boundaries of the
<br />Indian reservation for two reasons. First. the transfer of water to new
<br />lises within the reservation is consistent with the purpose for which
<br />the wat,', was reserved in the first instance. Moreover. the transfer of
<br />wata to new uses within the reservation would not cause nearly the
<br />imp;lcl which would accompan" the sale of w~ter off the resen;ation
<br />to Illeet the virtually limitless demand for water in [he West.
<br />While the lI'i11lers right may be measured by the pracricably
<br />irri;;:.lble JC!"~3ge on the r~seTvation.3 3 courts have consistently recog.
<br />nizd that the scope of thc right must be flexible enough to meet
<br />fUlllre, as well as present. needs of the reservation." Tribal advo-
<br />,'atcs rransbte thc "prescnt and future needs" language to mean that
<br />tilC J"iJlic'rS right is open-ended, allowing additional water [0 be
<br />,'!limed as new uses for the water on the reservation arise"
<br />..\ more wurkable approach would be to limit the quantity of
<br />
<br />.; I. CJJ1P..l~:( \', LJllilcLl St...t~s, -126 U.S. J .28(1976).
<br />~ ~ .\I~ t:h. Federal GrOlll/JWiller Rights: A '\"ot~ on Coppa en l'. (.iII/led Slates. 13 L:\:\D
<br />,. 1I.-\fIR L. RE\'. 377, 387.88(1978).
<br />.iJ. :\rr~'-'Il.l ~'. c'ilifornl...l. 373 U.S. 546 (19631.
<br />3..). SLoe, ~'.g.. c.mrad 11I\'':Slmt:nl c,.}. v. CnJled SIJte'S. 161 F. 8~9191h Cie. 1908): llnllc.-d
<br />~;.tl." '., r,JI:..:r::J11l Ire, Olst.. 236 L2d 321 19th Cu. 1956), nm, denied, 352 U,S, 9,';S
<br />Ij'j.;71. j~'C(A:J cl'lh',:,1 330 L~t1 897 (9th Cir. 1960.1); see also S. Rifkind. Report vf :h~
<br />:--, .,L,d .\].I>:r:: ~65. 1t.6 11%0) I AriLOn:..L \', C.ilu'orniJ., 373 C,S. 5.J6 U963)) Iht:lei/l.l::::
<br />_I.,'J.;~ l{':~v;t u( lh~ Sr~l"i1.l M:J\T~rl_
<br />jj. IJdh,,-,. h!:irall lI'atl'r U.~t:h;s-TlIL~ h'/J/!l'rsDoclrine UpJ..:r..'d, 6 GO:\Z, L. HlV. ~I~
<br />, I ~ ,It: \'l.':J:.::. h'il/ters LJui.:crine Rigius-l\enlOlle of Natiotlo.l Programs for l\/cHcrul.,;rr;
<br />_".1 1l',Jit'r c..,'!t~nal;ull QI/J ~'tifi;aliu", 26 "IO~ T, L REV. 149 t 1965,.
<br />
|