Laserfiche WebLink
<br />On the question of tho a:wunt of _ter covered b;r <br /> <br /> <br />sw::!l '''I;l1ied reservations there is no controlling decision <br /> <br />of the United Stat.es Supreme CO".lo-t. lIhUe tile Winters case held <br /> <br /> <br />that there .... an 1D.plied reservation of ntar in illS alll'e"""",t <br /> <br /> <br />there under consideration, that caso did not announce any rule <br /> <br />u to haw the eount of water rese....-ved should be det..ena1ned. In <br /> <br />Sp8'l1t1ng of this aspect of the Winters case, it was said in u. s. v <br /> <br />Wightman, 2)0 Fed. 277, 283 (DC Ariz.). <br /> <br />"The deci~cn (in the Winter. cac.) is not authority <br />that the mere creation ex vi ten:rl.n1 reserves to the Indians. <br />or to tile 1Jn1ted State. for thoir bene!1t, the benlt1ciaJ. <br />uoe of l1ll ....tars flo1rln. 'rlthin tile re.ervaticn."' <br /> <br />In Skeen v. U. !. 273 Fed. 93 (~ 9th Cir.) tile <br /> <br />question of tho quantity of watar c<ml1'ed b;r a treaty reservation <br /> <br />ftl considered, the court ~I <br /> <br />"The appellants contend that t~JJ ut1clJJ (Of the <br />t%"e3tj') o;era.tes to llmit the o."'Ctent of' th'!l water rights <br />of tho Indian., ancl that it reserves te them only the <br />q'.J&I1tity o! lfater M08asar;r for the irr1&at1on ot such <br />]Xlrtions of t.'181r lands as were at that tims ""t~ <br />irrigated, a.'1d tllat the;r "1'8 without authorit;r to use <br />_tar for the irrigation of the rema1nder of their <br />land. in case 1:.."e)" Illigl>.t subsequentl,y reduce the ..... <br />to cultivation. The court below, properJy .. think, <br />ruled against thie contention." <br /> <br />In Parkins v. U. S'J 18 F. (2d) 642, the United <br /> <br />State. District Court for TIyom1ng ssid. <br /> <br />"It IlNat be asSUMd, hOll'Sver, in the absence ot Bl\Y <br />specific grant, that tJle govvrt1l:1ant nas reserved whatever <br />ri6Jlte rnsy be necesSlU7 for the beneficial. us. of tha <br />"""ern::>ent in C&1T)'ing out its previous treaty rights." <br /> <br />In u. S. v l'!alker River Irr. Diat., supra, <br /> <br />the lIinth Circuit Court. of Appeals considered ths question <br /> <br />0033 <br /> <br />-"l- <br />