Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0512 <br /> <br />For the most part, the government's actions in reserving lands for its own <br /> <br /> <br />purposes, or for Indian purposes, did not mention an associated reservation of a right <br /> <br /> <br />to water. This was not a problem until water was required on the reserved lands and <br /> <br /> <br />found to be either fully appropriated by others under state law or available only in <br /> <br /> <br />quantities insufficient to meet needs on the reserved lands. <br /> <br />The first indication that the Federal Government retained some water rights <br />associated with its reservation of land for federal purposes resulted from U.S. v. Rio <br />Grande Dam and IrriRation Company in 1899 (174 U.S. 690). In its decision, the <br />U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Government could not be prevented by <br />state law from using water bordering its property to achieve federal purposes. <br />However, it was not until the Court's 1908 decision in Winters v. U.S. (207 U.S. 564) <br />that it squarely confronted the issue of a state-granted water right versus a water <br />right retained by the Federal Government for land it had reserved. <br /> <br />B. Winters Doctrine <br /> <br />The so-called "Winters Doctrine" resulted from a suit brought by the Federal <br />Government to prevent the diversion of water from the Milk River in Montana to the <br />detr iment of Indians residing on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. The Indian <br />reservation had been created by Congress May I, 1888 (25 Stat. 124), although no <br />specific mention had been made in the legislation concerning an associated water <br />right and the State of Montana had granted no subsequent right to the Federal <br />Government or the Fort Belknap tribes. <br /> <br />In its Winters decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the Federal <br /> <br />Government established the Fort Belknap Reservation, it also implied a water right to <br /> <br />-3- <br />