Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'-" -.4- <br /> <br />owned by the Indians; otherwise, the application of any other <br />rule would permit such grantee for an indefinite period to <br />reclaim the balance of his land and withhold the application <br />of the water to a beneficial use, which is against the policy <br />recognized in the development of arid lands." <br /> <br />Under the statutes and decisions just mentioned the following <br />conclusions seem to be justified I <br /> <br />1. Upon the making of allotments of land to individual Indians, <br />the allottee receives a right to Some portion of the tribal <br />waters essential to the cultivation of the allotted land <br />(U.S. v. Powers, supra). Under Section 7 of the General <br />Allotment Act (25 USCA 381) this must be a just and equal <br />distribution of the water. <br /> <br />2. In the event of a lease or sale of Indian allotment land <br />upon whioh tribal water has been used, the lessee or pur- <br />chaser has 'the sa;'lle right to water as had the Indian <br />allottee (~"ll v. U.S. and U.S. v. Powers, both supra). <br /> <br />,. In the event of a sale or exchange to a white perscn of <br />Indian allctment land upon which tribal water has not been <br />used, the white person acquires no right to any tribal water. <br />fVhile there is no decision so holding, this statement is in <br />accord with the reasoning of the Court in the Hibner case, <br />supra, and would appear justified by the fo11mving:- <br /> <br />2107 <br /> <br />(a) <br /> <br />The deoision in the Winters case and those which <br />follow it are predicated upon the need of the Indians <br />not white men for water; <br />Section 7 of the General Allotment Act (25 USCA 381) <br />refers to a just and equal distribution of water <br />"among the Indians;" <br />The Walker River Irrigation District case. supra, <br />specifioally says that the extent Ilf the irrigable <br />area is not necessarily the oriterion of the amount <br />of water reserved; <br />The establishment of any rule recognizing a right to <br />reserve water for future use would enoourage waste <br />and run contrary to public policy in the arid land <br />states (See Walker River Irrigation District and <br />Hibner c8.ses"'bOti1 supra). (M.B. there might possibly <br />be an exception to this last statement in a situation <br />where water was actually used on the allotment land <br />by the Indians and the white owner with reasonable <br />dilir'.ence incres.sed the irrigated acreage and claimed <br />a rieht to additional water under the doctrine of <br />relation. back.) <br /> <br />(b) <br /> <br />(c) <br /> <br />(d) <br /> <br />-13. <br />