WSPP00097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" ~ It will be noted that the estimated total annual di7ersions at the present time is 369,550 acre feet, and that the estilllated ultimate diver- sion will be 1,434,000 aore feet. This table also estimates that the present total annual depletions in the Upper Basin is 158,000 acre feet, and that the ultimate depletions will be 585,000 aore feet. So far as this I"emorandum is concerned it is thought that no good purpose would be served by oonsidering individual reservations Or indivi- dual projects. The provisions of treaties and agreements between the United States and Indian tribes may vary considerably as may also the conditions under which existing projects have been authorized or future projects may be authorized. The objeot here will be to arrive at rules of general application. SOOWlY OF CONCLUSIQIrS The conclusions which I have reached may be summarized as follows: 1. The United States upon the oreation of an Indian reser7ation on arid lands practically useless without irrigation reserved, impliedly or expressly, water for the irrigation of such lands. 2. The amount of l'later so reserved is that reasonably neoessary to supply the needs of the Indians,. 3. In the Colorado River basin the amount of water so reserved may be reasonably taken to be the amount presently used. lTHAT ARE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES :co :rIfr: INDIAN TRIHt:S IN &;SH;Cl' TO WATER USES? Article VII of the Colorado River Compaot provides as follows: "Nothing in this compact shall be construed as a.ffecting the ob1igaticns of t;,e, United States to Indian tribes." A prilllal"J conside:-ation is just what are the "obligations" of the United States to the Indian tribes so far as water uses are concerned. From a practical standpoint the question iSI Granting that by treaty, agreement or otherwise the United States has reserved water for the Indians; is the amollnt of water so reserved to be measured by the demands of the Indians at the time of the agreement or treaty, at some date between then and the presen~, at the presen~, or at some indefinite date of ~he future? It has been said that treaties with the Indians and statutes dis- posing of property for their benefit have uniformly been given a liberal interpretation favorable to the Indian wards (see U.S. v. Walker River Irr. Dist., 104 F (2d) 334, 337). A reoent lower court statement of the rule is that fOllnd in the decision in l~enas v, U.S., 60 F. Supp. 411, 420, (D. C. Calif.) where it was said, 2116 -4.,.