WSPC05416

• File Number: 8064
• Description: Indian Water Rights
• State: CO
• Date: 5/1/1984
• Author: Western Governors As
• Title: Indian Water Rights in the West
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2391

-11-

rights is not a publicly defined beneficial use under state
law, but the implied intent of Congress. Winters rights have
rarely been stated in terms of a definite quantity, nature of
use or time of use. They are not terminated by abandonment
or forfeiture. Their priority date is not later than the date
the Indian reservation to which they pertain was created.
Winters rights apparently are transferable. However certain
restrictions pertain to such transfers, some of which are
currently being defined through litigation. In short, there
is really little similarity between Winters water rights and
appropriative water rights. This lack of similarity has been
a major factor in the controversy which Winters rights have
engendered.

Of all the questions relating to Winters rights, possibly
the one which will have the greatest impact when answered is
the question relating to their potential quantity. In Winters
the Court seemed more concerned with establishing the existence
of the impliedly reserved Indian ~ater right than defining the
quantity of the right. The Winters decree can be read to
have established a reserved water right for the Fort Belknap
Reservation of 5,000, 7,000 or 11,000 miners inches from the
Milk River, or all of the water in the river. 2/ Since Winters,
the courts have struggled to ascertain a formula for quanti-
fying Indian reserved rights. Today the quantity question is
unanswered for most reservations.