Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'.)' <br /> <br /> <br />To recognize in the Indians any reserved right to more water <br />than they are now using would definitely retard the development of all <br />projects dependent upon the beneficial consumptive use of Colorado River <br />water because until the ext'mt of the Indian right is defined the !U1lount <br />of available water would be uncertain. By so retarding development the <br />waste of water is encouraged, for water that is not put to beneficial <br />consumptive use passes be~'ond the United States either for use in Mexico <br />or for discharge into the Gulf of California. The doctrine of relation <br />should not be so enlarged as to l'Crnlit a project to enforce a claim on' <br />water on the the ory that thc e;:istence of a potential demand creates a <br />reserved right to a ouantity of water greater than that ourrently re- <br />quired and reasonably necessary under present conditions. There is no <br />reason for the applioation of any different rule to the Indians. In <br />either situo.tion the waste of water is the same. <br /> <br />On the whole, it would seem to be a sound cono1usion that the <br />Indians have no reserved or preferential riCht to a greater quantity of <br />water than tr,ey are now using and that in the seouring of rights to <br />greater qu"n'~j,ties of water 'the Indians stand on no differont f'ooting <br />than do the white people who use water of the Colorado River s~~tem. <br />At the 'time of the treaties and agreerr.ents with the Indians and of the <br />oreation of ths Indian reservations there was no thought or i~tent <br />either on tho purt of the United States or of the Indians th,~ enormous <br />storage facilities would be constructed along the Colorado hiver and <br />that miles of oanals, tunnels, and aqueducts would be built to convey <br />water to the p1aoe of use. Such projects did not then exist even in <br />the imagina.tive stage. Row oan it be said that there WllS an implied <br />reservation of water for a use that did not exist in the oontemp1ation <br />of the parties? <br /> <br />The United States Supreme Court has reoent1y said (Northwestern <br />Bands of Shoshone Indians v. U.S. supra) that it will not vary the terms <br />of Indian treaties "to meet alliged injustices" and that "suoh generosity. <br />if' any may be oa1led for in the relations between the United States and <br />the Indians, is f'or the Congress." The app1ioation of' this rule would <br />put future Indian uses of Colorado River water in the same oa.tegory with <br />uses by white people, <br /> <br />THE RIGHTS TO WATER OF A WHITE OWNER OF <br />nTtiIAN ALLOTMEN'TT..ANDS OBTAI1TED THROUGH <br />EXCHANGE OR OTBERWISE <br /> <br />The development of' the allotment system in regard to Indian lands <br />is well desoribed in Hand Book of Federal Indian Law, p. 206. The General <br />Allotment Aot, frequently referred to as the Dawes Aot, was enacted <br />February 8, 1887, (24 Stat. 388). The so-oalled Wheeler-Howard Act <br />(Act of June 18, 1934, 48 stat. 964) reoognized the making of voluntary <br />exohanges of' Indian lands for other land,s of equal value. <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />2111 <br />