|
<br />
<br />.
<br />,
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Pac(1jc Law Journal I Yol. 19
<br />
<br />1988 / C~lifomiQ Colorado Ri\ln' Issues
<br />
<br />-.
<br />
<br />t~ lease or seU thC'i, reserved waler off the reservalion. There are,
<br />however. no court decision!'! known to the author interpreting the
<br />IJIjn/~rs doctrine in a manner which would allow such activity. There
<br />arc some casts dealing with Ihe leasI: or ,ale of Indian reservation
<br />land with Ihe accompanying waler riShu,1n but those riahts are
<br />subject 10 105s for non-use.l~ Moreover. the discunion in lome cases
<br />seems to lead to the conclusion that the water obtained pursuant to
<br />the H';"t~1'$ dOdrine can only be used on the land for which it was
<br />reserved.
<br />The Special Master. as pre\liously noted, discussed the intent Bnd
<br />limitation of the doctrine. lit He furtha concluded thai these rights
<br />"are of fixed magnilude and priorit)' and are appunenant 10 defined
<br />lands, ",,. In Ihe Cappaert case, the Supreme Court held: .'(lJhe
<br />implitd reservation of water doctrine, however, reserves only that
<br />amounl of water necessary to fulfill the purpose or the reservation
<br />and no morc. "u' In Washinlton Y. Fishing Vessrt Association,ll. Ihe
<br />Courl held:
<br />As in Arizona v, Califorllia .nd its pt~dec~uot C&.SeS. the c~n(r.1
<br />principle here must be that Indian Irellly rights to .. natural resource
<br />that once wu thoroughly and exclusi,,~ly exploited by the Indians
<br />sec'Utts so much as, bu{ no mOte than is a<<essary to provi.de the
<br />Indians with II livelihood that is 10 say. II moderate living""
<br />
<br />The theory Ihat reserved water rights can only be used on the
<br />reservation is based on the fact that the righls were implied as being
<br />necessary 10 fulfill the purposes for which the reservarion was created.
<br />This rationale supports tht: holding that these rights cannol be lost
<br />by the Indians by non-use, and the priority of the rights is not
<br />changed by late quantification. However, the Iransfer of watcr orf
<br />the reservation dot:s not further the life of Ihe Indians on the
<br />reservation. Therefore, to retain thf early priority dace does mischief
<br />
<br />Several attorneys r<:presenting Indian Tribes with Winters rights
<br />have indicated to the author and orhers their belief that chose righlS
<br />are nol subject to the Law of the River. The agreement with the
<br />Colorado Ute Indian Tribes discussed abovel!lO skirts this question by
<br />allOwing out of slate off reservation sales only 10 Che extenC permiued
<br />by Slate law, Fedcrallaw, inlerstale compact, or incernational trealy".1
<br />The argument seems to rest on the dual theory that the Tribes arC
<br />sovereign nalions and Article VII of the Colorado River Compact
<br />which provides: "Nothing in this Compact shall b.e construed as
<br />affecting the obligations of the United States of America co Indian
<br />tribes."I&2
<br />There is no question that the United States is bound by the Law
<br />of Ihe R.iver, Ihrough aCls and approvals of Congress and decisions
<br />
<br />wilh che rights oC other appropriaton. This iJ particularly true in
<br />the Lower Basin of the Colorado River.
<br />The Indians, on Ihc olher hand, have a compelling economic and
<br />polilical argument. The reserved water righrs. particularly if Chey are
<br />10 be used for asricultural purposes, are of little use to the Indians
<br />unless they have the usual irrigacion works in place. With the Cederal
<br />gOl/ernment reducing e~penditures on such project', there would
<br />appear to be Iii lie hope of the cribes accomplishing the necessary.
<br />development to make use of Iheir water rights unlc'ss Ih~ can lease
<br />or sell the water '0 raise the necessary capilal, or to have lower
<br />priorilY users pay che cribes nor to develop their reservarion lands.
<br />This problem is nor goinS to go away. The Indians hold rights to
<br />large quantities of water, not just in che Colorado River Basin. Lower
<br />priority holdcrs are going 10 balk at off.reservation sales. COloradOt1
<br />with the Colorado Ute Indian agreement, may have touched on a
<br />possible compromise solution by insisting that if off-reservation sales
<br />8re permitted. the priority date of Ihat sold water will be Che date
<br />or the ule.
<br />
<br />B.
<br />
<br />Are Indian Resl!rvtd Wattr Rights Subjl!d /0 tire Low olthl!
<br />River?
<br />
<br />......
<br />
<br />,,~. E.,., St<<rn.... Unlleel' Slltn, 273 F. fJ (9Ih Clr. 19211; Unllcd Sill" t". Hibner. 27
<br />F 2d 90ll IE.D. IoSlho 19211. .
<br />".. Unill'd SUI~'.... A"d~"on. 136 F.ld IUI ("h Or. 19"1.
<br />I". .w fU"" IUIII nOIf I~f .v-r ./ra IIf r~ T~ ~nrr.1 Adjud'ClliOll of All "';~hIIID
<br />Ulr W.'~r in lhe fill Horn Ri_fir SYI'~m. --".2d _lfcb. 2~, 19111, (lhc Wyominl
<br />Suprcmc Coun .mlmed the IIi.l COUrl.1 dccrC'C, which .rnOlll oth~r itmll OI"d~rcd lh.1 IndiM
<br />Tnb~, Ihlr wcrc'l.lrdcd w.ter rilhll could 110I ~.porl Ih., ""CI' ofr thc I'C'Icr....llon).
<br />1'6. Jl:rl'Olt of 5peclll MI1lCr, 1M"'" nOle ", 112M.
<br />IH. C.~J:CIl~r1.... Uniled SI.,n, '26 U.S. 126, I~I (19161. 5ft 6&0 United 5r.l" .... Ntw'
<br />Muico. ~lI ~.S. 6'iI6 (19711.
<br />"I. "J If.S. "IU'7'1.
<br />U9. Wulrjn'IOII,") U.S. .1 615.
<br />
<br />160. S<<$Ilpr'n~" ..'-n .ndaccornplnyin.lm.
<br />161. Id.
<br />161. CompaC'!, SUpM, "o~ J .t Irt. vn. Pro(<<1Or HulldlC)' IncliealCS th.1 Ihis aniclc ...
<br />pl.t:cd in lhc Compacl 10 protect thc Indi.1I lribel ",Ier nahu, .hatC'tCl' Irw, werc. HtnooLn,
<br />supra nOI~ " II 211-12.
<br />
<br />1428
<br />
<br />1429
<br />
|