9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

compact, show that the issue of tribal water rights on the Colorado River was considered relatively shortly after the Winters decision and that the commissioners involved in negotiation of the Colorado River Compact did not know what to do with the tribal rights. Therefore, the solution proposed by Herbert Hoover, the federal representative, was that language be included indicating that the tribal rights were not covered by the compact. As a result, there is an article in the 1922 compact that provides that "nothing in this compact shall affect the obligations of the Uni ted States to Indian tribes." There is similar language in the 1948 Upper Colorado River Compact. There is also language in the 1922 compact about the protection of present perfected rights. Present perfected rights are those rights, of course, that were in effect prior to the time of the 1922 compact. The tribal rights qualify as such rights. To the extent that the tribes were in control of their rights, there is no indication that when the 1922 compact came into existence and the 1948 compact came into existence, there was any intent to bind the tribes to the provisions of the Compact. It is also true that if you look at the compact, many of the restrictive phrases, particularly in 1922 compact, that control the activities on the River are specifically addressed to the states. For example, Article 3.E, which says the Upper Basin states shall not retain water unless it is needed for domestic and agricultural purposes, and limits the types of calls Lower Basin states can make on the Upper Basin, is directed to the states. Article 3.E does not say anything about the tribes and it does not say anything about the federal government; it is directed to the states. Read together with the minutes of the Compact and Article 7, the escape clause for the tribes, leads me to conclude that, when all is said and done, the Law of the River does not apply to the tribes. Where does that leave us on the subject of water marketing? Well, when we talk about water marketing, I think it is important that we define what we are talking about. When I use the phrase water marketing, I am really talking about the tribes choosing to allow others to use tribal water off the reservations in return for compensation. I am not talking about increasing the quantity of water to which tribes are entitled because of their ability to market. I am not talking about putting water to use in a way that injures others any differently than if the tribe were to put that water to use on the reservation. To the extent that tribal water rights are not in use today, obviously, putting those rights to use may in many instances cut off other users. That is the necessary result of the Reserved Rights Doctrine as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. In short, we are not talking about having any additional injury above and beyond that which results from other tribal water uses. The argument in favor of tribal marketing is quite simple. At the time an Indian reservation was created, the tribe in question obtained a vested right to a certain quantity of water and it has command of that water, just as was said in the Winters case. Water itself, of course, has been deemed by the Supreme Court to be an article of commerce and that same reasoning ought to apply to tribal water rights. In addition, there is a long standing federal policy, which we have not talked about here I but is found in many of the tribal fishing rights cases, that says you do not lock the tribes into 46