Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the then unappropriated waters of the Milk River sufficient to satisfy the purposes of <br /> <br /> <br />the Indian reservation. The decision assigned the Indian water right a date of <br /> <br /> <br />priority of May 1, 1888 - the day the reservation was created. It also rejected the <br /> <br /> <br />argument that state water law controlled Indian water rights and held that the water <br /> <br /> <br />rights thus "reserved" for the Indians continued indefinitely, even when not put to <br /> <br /> <br />use. The Court's logic in holding for the Indian's reserved water right was that the <br /> <br /> <br />Indian reservation had been created to foster a new way of life among the Indians. <br /> <br /> <br />This included agriculture which, in the semi-arid climate at Fort Belknap, implied <br /> <br /> <br />wa ter for irr igation as well. <br /> <br />The Winters Doctrine therefore answered some questions regarding water rights <br /> <br /> <br />accompanying lands reserved by the Federal Government, and more specifically lands <br /> <br /> <br />set aside for Indian reservations. However, it left unanswered a host of associated <br /> <br /> <br />issues and even created new ones. Many of the issues surrounding Winters have been <br /> <br /> <br />and are still being litigated. <br /> <br />C. Post-Winters Doctrine <br /> <br />The follow ing subsections of this report highlight some of the issues concerning <br /> <br /> <br />Indian water rights that have emerged, and some of which have been adjudicated, <br /> <br /> <br />since Winters. <br /> <br />1. Quantification of Indian Water RiRhts <br /> <br />In Winters the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Indian water right sufficient <br />to satisfy the purposes of the Indian reservation and affirmed a lower court <br />order enjoining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the use by <br /> <br />-4- <br />