WSP09929 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0008J8 --The United States reserved the water rights for the Indians in the amount needed for purposes of the reservation effective as of the time the Indian reservations were created. The Court also concluded that the Winters doctrine provided that sufficient water was reserved for both the present and future needs of the Indians for the purposes of the reserva- tion. Reservation for future uses constitutes a significant departure from Western water law, which appropriated water to those who first put it to beneficial use rather than to those who owned the land. This departure has caused considerable consternation among and opposition from the States and non-Indian water users. Because there is no well-defined measure of the amount of water reserved for Indian and Federal uses and because these rights have not been inventoried and quantified, the States and non-Indian water users do not know how much water remains available for appropriative use. Quantification of Indian reserved water rights raises many controversial issues. For example, certain Indian attorneys have concluded that any quantification of Indian water rights must be flexible enough to accommodate future water uses necessary for economic development of Indian reservations. State attorneys and officials, on the other hand, feel that Indian water rights should be quantified on the basis of uses reasonably foreseen at the time the reservation was established. otherwise, they argue that the magnitude of the water rights remains open ended and ever increasing. State officials are also concerned that the reserva- tion doctrine does not provide compensation to existing water users who may be adversely affected by Indian reserved water rights. These officials believe that any solution to the problem should include Federal compensation to existing water rights holders who lose their rights because of this doctrine. The National Water Commission made a similar recommenda- tion in its 1973 report "Water Policies For the Future." The report recommended that the United States either provide an alternative water supply to non-Indian users or, if this proves infeasible, compensate previous users for impairment of their rights initiated prior to the 1963 decision in Arizona v. California. The report recommends the latter if the previous users had no notice of the Indian rights at the 15