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 />00l~ <br /> <br />-15- <br /> <br />Two very recent cases shed light on the open-endedness <br />of Winters rights, In Nevada v, United States 20/ the Supreme <br />Court held that a decree which resulted from a general ad- <br />judication could not be re-opened to enlarge Indian water <br />rights for fishery purposes when the Indian rights were <br />originally quantified for irrigation uses. In the most recent <br />A ' C l' f . d .. 21/ h S ChId th t <br />r~zona v. a ~ orn~a ec~s~on - t e upreme ourt e a <br /> <br />while language in the Supreme Court decree which mandated con- <br /> <br />tinuing jurisdiction over the case allowed for changes in <br />quantified rights because of changes in reservation size (i.e., <br /> <br />for boundary changes), the language did not allow establishment <br />of expanded water rights for lands within reservation bounda- <br /> <br />ries which were omitted from consideration in the earlier <br /> <br />determination of rights. Perhaps these decisions signify a <br />flat rejection of the theory that Indian water rights were <br />open-ended and susceptible to expansion at any time. A <br /> <br />narrower interpretation, however, is that they were evidence <br /> <br />of the Court's respect for earlier court decrees establishing <br /> <br />water rights and its reluctance to upset them under most <br /> <br />circumstances, <br /> <br />Three other recent cases dealing with quantification should <br />also be mentioned. In Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton 22/ <br /> <br />the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the existence <br />of an Indian water right to support a fishery and to maintain <br />