Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002221 <br /> <br />ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. <br /> <br />47 <br /> <br />sonably foreseeable needs of the Indians living on the <br />reservation rather than by the number of irrigableacres; <br />and, finally, that the judicial doctrine of equitable appor- <br />tionment should be used to divide the water between the <br />Indians and the other people in the State of Arizona. <br />The last argument is easily answered. The doctrine of <br />equitable apportionment is a method of resolving water <br />disputes between States. It was created by this Court <br />in the exercise of its original jurisdiction over contro- <br />versies in which States are parties. An Indian Reserva- <br />tion is not a State. And while Congress has sometimes <br />left Indian Reservations considerable power to manage <br />their own affairs, we are not convinced by Arizona's argu- <br />ment that each reservation is so much like a State that <br />its rights to water should be determined by the doctrine <br />of equitable apportionment. Moreover, even were we to <br />treat an Indian Reservation like a State, equitable appor- <br />tionment would still not control since, under our view, the <br />Indian claims here are governed by the statutes and <br />Executive Orders creating the reservations. <br />Arizona's contention that the Federal Government had <br />no power, after Arizona became a State, to reserve waters <br />for the use and benefit of federally reserved lands rests <br />largely upon statements in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 <br />How. 212 (1845), and Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1 (1894). <br />Those cases and others that followed them 101 gave rise to <br />the doctrine that lands underlying navigable waters with- <br />in territory acquired by the Government are held in trust <br />for future States and that title to such lands is automati- <br />cally vested in the States upon admission to the Union. <br />But those cases involved only the shores of and lands <br />beneath navigable waters. They do not determine the <br /> <br />101 See, e. g" United States v. California, 332 U. S, 19,29-30 (1947); <br />United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U, S. 49, 54-55 (1926). <br /> <br />99500 0-63-4 <br />