9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to accomplish the purposes of the reservation. The treaty called for the Tribes to make a the transformation from a nomadic lifestyle to one involving irrigated agriculture and the arts of civilization. Water was set aside for these reservation purposes. The right was recognized under federal law, not under state law, and was quite different from state water rights. There was no need for the tribes to put that water to use to establish a priority date, rather the priority date stems from at least as early as the time the reservation was created. That case has been cited many times. I am sure that many of you are familiar with it. We commonly talk about it in the context of h9W to quantify tribal water rights. But, if you go back and look at the opinion, you find a great deal of discussion by the Supreme Court about how the tribes had "command of the waters." Again, the Court goes back to this notion that tribes were sovereign with control over the resources within their territory, both before and after the treaty. Before the treaty the tribes had control over a large area. When the treaty was passed and the tribes agreed to accept a smaller reservation and make this transformation, the tribes retained control of the water. I think that we will see that the control issue is equally as important as the quantification and treatment of the tribes' entitlement to water rights. The Winters Doctrine or the Reserved Rights Doctrine has a mixed history from 1908 up into the 1960's. There were numerous cases in which the Reserved Rights Doctrine was recognized. The doctrine was expanded to apply to reservations that were created other than by treaty, i.e. those created by executive order. In general, there was an acknowledgement of the existence of the doctrine, but it remained quite vague. In 1963, however, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arizona versus California, which you heard about yesterday. What is important from the tribes' perspective is that in Arizona versus California, the United States intervened and asserted water rights on behalf of all 26 tribes in the Lower Colorado River basin. The Court ultimately decided only to address the question of main stem rights, and the Supreme Court awarded nearly one million acre-feet of water to the five tribes along the main stem of the Lower Colorado River basin. That was the first time that the Court addressed a permanent or perpetual quantification of the tribal rights. For those reservations, the Court used a standard which is called the PIA standard because it is hard for most people to say practicably irrigable acreage with any ease. The idea was that at the time the reservations were established, the tribes were meant to have enough water to irrigate all the practicably irrigable acreage on the reservation. There is some dispute about exactly what that means. I think practicably means exactly what it sounds like; "what is reasonable," economics also plays a role in it. In any event, it was. a substantial quantity of water within the Lower Basin. The focus after Arizona v. California has been to find a way to quantify the tribal water rights. Not very much attention is paid to the issue of how are those water rights regulated, who ought to have control of that water, and what opportunities do the tribes really have to put their water to use. Nevertheless, there was law review article written after the Arizona versus California decision that anticipated many of the issues that we are talking about today. It 44