Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br />the Milk River water users would have been a simple one if <br />Congress had included provisions establishing Indian water <br />rights in the legislation which created the Fort Belknap <br />Reservation. Unfortunately such was not the case. The lack <br />of a clearly established Indian water right led the Supreme <br />Court in Winters v. United State& lito creatively fashion <br /> <br />a "reserved" Indian water right based on the reasoning that <br />Congress must have intended to reserve water for the Indian <br />reservation at the time of its creation because such water <br /> <br />was necessary to convert the "nomadic and uncivilized" Indians <br />to "pastoral and civilized people". ~/ Thus, the Winters doctrine, <br /> <br />or the Indian "reserved water rights" doctrine, was born, <br /> <br />In the seventy-five years since Winters was decided many <br /> <br />more questions about Indian reserved rights have been asked <br />than answered. Thus, queries abound relating to, among other <br />things, priority dates, rights of al1otees, lease and sale of <br />rights, jurisdiction for purposes of adjudication and adminis- <br />tration, scope and purpose of the rights, as well as their <br />termination. Because the Winters doctrine has been judicially <br />created and defined, answers to these questions come only <br />sporadically (when a case presenting them arises) ana tnen <br />often in less than definitive fashion. <br /> <br />In comparison to the attributes of appropriative water <br />rights, with which the Indian reserved rights must eventually <br />be integrated, the following is known, The basis of Winters <br />