My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03738
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03738
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 10:37:16 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:56:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8410.200.60
Description
Basin Multi-State Organizations - Missouri River Basin Commission - Reports
Date
1/4/1974
Title
Technical Report of the Federal Legislation Group - Joint Federal-State Subcommittee Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Water Marketing
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />( ( <br /> <br />c. Constraints Due to Indian RiGhts <br /> <br />Water rights accruing to 'the II~irol tribes must be recognized. <br /> <br />On 13 riovember 1973, the three affiliated tribes of the Fort Berthold <br /> <br />Reservation in Ihrth Dakota served notice through its Tribal Resolution <br /> <br />to all agencies and persons advising them that "they may not lal<fully <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />!Ca."e any disposition of the water of the IHssouri River or other 1{aters <br /> <br />, of the Fort Bertbold Reservation that \Touid impair or diminish the water <br /> <br />rights of the T'nree Affiliated Tribes." <br /> <br />The United States Supreme Court in \-linters v. United States, <br /> <br />207 U.S. 564 (1903), held that in the case of the Fort Belknap Reservation <br /> <br />of l~ontaua) the Indians had a reserved right to use 0.0 much \futer oi' the <br /> <br />Eilk River of the W.sgouJ:i River Basin' as was necessary and that even <br /> <br />though unexercised, the right carried a continuing priority as of the <br /> <br />chte the reservation \Ias established. Thus, unless the Indinn Treaty <br /> <br />or Congressional act creating the reservation specifically excluded <br /> <br />11ater rights, the "Hinters Doctrine" 1wuld prevail. In Arizona v. <br /> <br />California, 373 U.s. 757 (1963), the U. S. Supreme Court ~uantified <br /> <br />the Indian's reserve \lnter right to that amount which would saUsfy <br /> <br />present as well as future needs in irrigating all the practicable <br /> <br />irrigable acreage on the reservation. <br /> <br />d. Conclusions <br /> <br />1. The maximum v'1c.I use of PS?\BP \Tater "hich can nOli be postulated <br /> <br />should not be substantially greater than the increased upstream depletions <br /> <br />originally authorized under the basic PSIffiP. <br /> <br />2. I,junicipal and industrial use of PS!IDP water should not deny <br /> <br />other project beneficiaries of any advantage \lhich was authorized for <br /> <br />tbel!l under the basic PS?.i1JP. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />i <br />i- <br />I <br />I <br />j_. I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.