WSPP00097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . .' Other cases dealing with implied reservations for the benefit of Indians are Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. U.S., 248 U.S. 78; U.S. v. McIntire, 101 F. (2d) 650 (CCA 9th Cir.); U.S. v. Powers, 94 F. (2d) 783 (CCA 9th Cir.); Skeem v. U.S., 273 Fed. (CCA 9th Cir.); U.S. v. Alexander, 131 F. (2~59 (CCA 9th Cir.); and U.S. v. ParkinS;-rs-F. (2d) c4Z (DC Wyo.). On the question of the 9lllount of water covered by such implied reservations there is no oontro11ing decision of the United States Supreme Court. Vlhi1e the Winters case held that there waS an implied reservation of water in theo-agreement there under consideration, that case did not announoe any rule as to how the amount of water reserved should be determined. In speaking of this aspect of the Winters oase, it was said in U.S. v. Wightman, 230 Fed. 277, 283 (DC Ariz.), "The decision (in the Winters oase) is not authority that the mere creation ex vi termini reserves to the Indians, or to the United States for their benefit, the beneficial use of all waters flowing within the reservation." In Skeem v. U.S. 273 Fed. 93 (CCA 9th Cir.) the question of the quantity of water covered by a treaty reservation was considered, the oourt saying I "The appello"lts contend that the article (Of the treaty) operates to U",i'o the extent of the water rights of the Indians, and that it reJo"ves to them only the quantity of water neoessary for the irrigation of suoh portions of their lands as were at that time actually irrigated, and that they were without author- ity to Use wate~ for the irrigation of the remainder of their lands in case they might subsequently reduce the same to ou1- tivation. The court below, properly we think, ruled against this :}ontention." In Parkins v. U,S., 18 F. (2d) 642, the United States Distriot Court for V~y'oming sa id , "It must be assumed, however. in the absence of any spec- ific grant, that the government has reserved whatever rights may be nec- essary for the beneficial use of the government in carrying out its previous treaty rights." In U.S. v' Walker River Irr. Dist., supra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the question of the quantity of water to which the Indians were entitled under an implied reservation, The court said (104 F. (2d) 339-~4o)1 "VIe hold that there was an im)?lied reservation of vlater to the exhnl; r8;;:sonarryn;c;e'~TosUI'piyt'!ienee"d"sOfthe 1J1d~~~ns~There remains for dacision the question as to the qu.;:ntity to which the United States ;is entitled. The problem -7- 2113