WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002222 48 ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA. problem before us and cannot be accepted as limiting the broad powers of the United States to regulate navigable waters under the Commerce Clause and to regulate gov- ernment lands under Art. IV, ~ 3, of the Constitution. We have no doubt about the power of the United States under these clauses to reserve water rights for its reserva- tions and its property. Arizona also argues ,that, in any event, water rights cannot be reserved by Executive Order. Some of the reservations of Indian lands here involved were made almost 100 years ago, and all of them were made over 45 years ago. . In our v-iew, these -reservations, like those created directly by Congress, were not limited to land, but included waters as well. Congress and the Execu- tive have ever since recognized these as Indian Reserva- tions. Numerous arnropriations, including appropria- tions for irrigation projects, have been made by Congress. They have been uniformly and universally treated as reservations by map makers, surveyors, and the public. We can give but short shrift at this late date to the argu- ment that the reservations either of land or water are invalid because they were originally set apart by the Executive.'02 '\Arizona also challenges the Master's holding as to the Indian Reservations on two other grounds, first, that there is a lack of evidence showing that the United States in establishing the reservations intended to reserve water for them, and, second, that even if water was meant to be reserved the Master has awarded too much water. We reject both of these contentions. Most of the land in these reservations is and always has been arid. If the 102 See United States v, Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 469-475 (1915); Winters v, United States, 207 U. S. 564 (1908).