WSP00897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,., r ... ." () 0 \JUt.;:, . , For the most part, the government's actions in reserving lands for its own purposes, or for Indian purposes, did not mention an associated reservation of a right to water. This was not a problem until water was required on the reserved lands and found to be either fully appropriated by others under state law or available only in quantities insufficient to meet needs on the reserved lands. The first indication that the Federal Government retained some water rights associated with its reservation of land for federal purposes resulted from U.S. v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Company in 1899 (174 U.S. 690). In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Government could not be prevented by state law from using water bordering its property to achieve federal purposes. However, it was not until the Court's 1908 decision in Winters v. U.S. (207 U.S. 564) that it squarely confronted the issue of a state-granted water right versus a water right retained by the Federal Government for land it had reserved. B. Winters Doctrine The so-called "Winters Doctrine" resulted from a suit brought by the Federal Government to prevent the diversion of water from the Milk River in Montana to the detr iment of Indians residing on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. The Indian reservation had been created by Congress May I, 1888 (25 Stat. 124), although no specific mention had been made in the legislation concerning an associated water right and the State of Montana had granted no subsequent right to the Federal Government or the Fort Belknap tribes. In its Winters decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the Federal Government established the Fort Belknap Reservation, it also implied a water right to -3-