Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0008~2 <br /> <br />the reservation and ownership of land from the public domain <br />and are not dependent upon actual diversion and use. <br /> <br />Settlement of these claiMs may involve withdrawal <br />of water rights from present users, since in many cases <br />the water now claimed has been appropriated by other users. <br />Continued delays in quantifying and settling these claiMs <br />will increase tensions and ~ncertainties, may cause economic <br />and social disruption, and could block further growth and <br />development in certain areas of the basin. By memoranduM <br />dated July 12, 1978, the President directed the Federal <br />agencies to initiate efforts leading to quantification of <br />Indian and Federal reserved rights. The Indian and Federal <br />reserved water rights controversy is the subject of another <br />GAG report. .Y <br /> <br />Quantity of Indian reserved water <br />rights may be substantial <br /> <br />The controversy over Indian reserved water rights and <br />entitlements in the basin is acute. Water rights reserved <br />on Indian reservations were addressed in 1908 in the case <br />of Winters v. United States, 207 u.s. 564 (1908). In brief, <br />the Court pointed out that the American Indians had granted <br />to the Federal Government certain rights to vast landholdings <br />which were capable of supporting their historical way of life. <br />In return for the Indians' giving up their rights and agreeing <br />to move to reservations, the Government assumed certain treaty <br />obligations which could not be taken away by State actions. <br /> <br />It was the Court's opinion that reservations in the <br />west were valueless without water to support the way of <br />life envisioned by the tribes and the Federal Government. <br />The Court realized that it would not be possible for Indian <br />tribes to settle on the reservations and become productive <br />citizens if they were denied sufficient water to fulfill <br />their reservation's purposes. <br /> <br />, <br />~ <br /> <br />After 55 years of debate over the legal principles arti- <br />culated in the Winters case, the Supreme Court concluded in <br />the case of Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) that: <br /> <br />--The Government intended to deal fairly with the Indians <br />by reserving for them waters without which their lands <br />would have been useless. <br /> <br />11"Reserved Water Rights for Federal and Indian <br />- A Growing Controversy in Need of Resolution," <br />Nov. 16, 1978.) <br /> <br />Reservations: <br />(CED-78-176, <br /> <br />14 <br />