WSPP00050 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r . . Ie . . expanded opportunities for recreation of the inhabitants and for visitors, (4) preservation and development of fish and wildlife, (5) .economic devel- opment of an often depressed area, and, of major importance, (6) potential resolution of the Indian water rights question. We move now to the issue of Indian water rights. You may ask, "What water rights do I ndians have, and how do they differ from other persons' water rights?" Essentially, Indians have the right to sustain their tribal members living on federally established reservations. This leads us to the Winters doctrine of reserved water rights. This was established by the United States Supreme Court in 1908 in a case called Winters v. United States. It has an interesting and indeed instructive background. The record shows that the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Montana had been set aside for certain Indian tribes as their permanent home, pursuant to an agreement between the United States and the Indians, dated May 1, 1888. One of the purposes of the reservation was to enable the Indians to become self-supporting as a pastoral and agricul- tural people. In fact, as part of the contract, the Federal Government agreed to pay $430,000 a year for ten years toward the purchase of "cows, bulls and other stock, goods, clothing, subsistence, agricultural and mechanical implements." The reservation comprised about 1 ,400 square miles, approximately 30,000 acres of which were suitable for ag riculture when irrigated by the waters of the Milk River, which traversed the northern boundary of the reservation. The Indians constructed their irrigation system but were interrupted in their use of it by a community of non-Indian settlers who had secured appropriated rights to the waters of the Milk River, upstream from the reservation. Their appropriated rights had been secured in accordance with the laws of Montana. Without access 0168 5