WSPC00493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002224 50 Altl:t;ONA v. CALIFORNIA. without intending to reserve waters necessary to make those reservations livable. The Court rejected. all of the arguments. As to whether water was intended to be reserved, the Court said, at p. 576: "The lands were arid and, without irrigation, were practically valueless. And yet, it is contended, the means of irrigation were deliberately given up by the Indians and deliberately accepted by the Govern- ment. The lands ceded were, it is true, also arid; and some argument may be urged, and is urged, that with their cession there was the cession of the waters, without which they would be valueless, and 'civilized communities could not be established thereon.' And this, it is further contended, the Indians knew, and yet made no reservation of the waters. We realize that there is a conflict of implications, but that which makes for the retention of the waters is of greater force than that which makes for their cession." The Court in Winte.rs concluded that the Government, when it created that Indian Reservation, intended to deal fairly with the Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been. useless. Winters has been followed by this Court as recently as 1939 in United States v. Powers, 305 U. S. 527. We fol- low it now and agree that the United States did reserve the water rights for the Indians effective as of the time the Indian Reservations were created. This means, as the Master held, that these water rights, having vested before the Act was passed in 1929, are "present perfected rights" and as such are entitled to priority under the Act. We also agree with the Master's conclusion as to the quantity of water intended to be reserved. He found that the water was intended to satisfy the future as well as the present needs of the Indian Reservations and ruled