WSP09695 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

':~53'~ . . t But their upstream diversion effectively diminished the flow to the Indian reservation, thus setting the stage for the confrontation in the courts, The essence of the Supreme Court's ruling was its -analysis of the agree- ment of May, 1888. Would the Indian tribes have knowingly ceded, and would the United States have unhesitatingly accepted, an immense tract of tribal reservation land in exchange for a significantly smaller tract within the former reservation, while fully aware that the smaller tract was arid and practically without value without access to the waters of the Milk River at its northern boundary? And would the United States, having in the agreement an unequivocal statement of the objective of having the Indians become self-supporting as a pastoral and agricultural people, and having included a provision for federal expenditures for a ten-year subsi- dy of livestock purchases for the Indians, have expected the Indians to be denied the necessary water to sustain themselves and their livestock economy? Additionally, the Court noted that legal precedent required ambiguities in agreements and treaties to be resolved from the standpoint of the Indians, saying, in effect, that even if the Indians had been misled by the language of the agreement, its intent was sufficiently evident for a conclusion of impliedly reserved rights of the Indians to the water they required for agricultural and domestic use. Even today, one wonders what became of the investments made by Winters and the other non-Indian claimants in this famous case? This could be the subject of an interesting study. The McCarran Amendment of 1952 (66 Stat. 560) also has proved to be a factor of uncertainty for Indian claimants to reserved rights to water for their reservations. Not only did it provide for joining the United States as a defendant in any suit "for the adjudication of rights to the use ...~. 4 ~,' . ~\~L.;.;.~~~:,,'~;'....._.;'_'"'''''J''''''_::''''' ~ .." "~ .