Winters v. United States

Last updated
Winters v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 24, 1907
Decided January 6, 1908
Full case nameHenry Winters, John W. Acker, Chris Cruse, Agnes Downs, et al., Appts. v. United States
Citations207 U.S. 564 ( more )
28 S. Ct. 207; 52 L. Ed. 340; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1415
Holding
The decree enjoining the companies from utilizing river waters intended for a Reservation was affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · David J. Brewer
Edward D. White  · Rufus W. Peckham
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · William H. Moody
Case opinions
MajorityMcKenna, joined by Fuller, Harlan, White, Peckham, Holmes, Day, Moody
DissentBrewer

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying water rights of American Indian reservations. [1] This doctrine was meant to clearly define the water rights of indigenous people in cases where the rights were not clear. [2] The case was first argued on October 24, 1907, and a decision was reached January 6, 1908. [3] This case set the standards for the United States government to acknowledge the vitality of indigenous water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of indigenous people. [4]

Contents

Background

Water rights

Water rights for indigenous peoples go much further than the water itself, as the rights also control where they are allowed to fish. Going up salmon.JPG
Water rights for indigenous peoples go much further than the water itself, as the rights also control where they are allowed to fish.

Water rights are extremely important to Indigenous peoples, especially those tribes living in the West, where water supplies are limited. Reservations, and those who live within them, rely on water sources for the water necessary for them to be self-sufficient. Reservations rely on streams and rivers for agricultural purposes. Not only is the water itself important to the Reservations, but also what the water contains. By having the rights to an area of water, one also gains rights to what is in the water. This gives an implied right to fish the waters. Because life relies on water, it may be fair to say that whoever controls the water ultimately has control over life on the reservation. [5]

Riparian system

The Riparian water system is the system controlling water use in the eastern states where water is found to be more plentiful. Under this system the owner of the land bordering the source of water is entitled to use of said water. [6] This system is sufficient for the states where water is found in abundance, but in the less water-rich western states the control of water must be handled differently.

Appropriative system

In the western part of the country, water ownership is controlled by the appropriative system. This system states that the owner of a piece of land does not automatically own the rights to water found on that land. Rights to water belong to the first user who puts the water to beneficial use. The first people to become appropriators of the water source have the right to continue using the water in the same quantity as always as long as they continue putting the water to good use. This holds true no matter how many other people wish to use the water. The latest water appropriator loses all of their water rights before any water rights are taken from the next latest appropriator. [7] The Fort Belknap Reservation in Montana, which had been created by the government in 1888, experienced issues with the appropriative water system when water flow to their reservation was being diverted to settlements of non American Indians. [8]

Fort Belknap American Indian Reservation

The Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was created in 1888 in Montana. It was created from what had once been a much larger area of land to be set aside for tribes. The 1888 agreement neglected to mention any water rights that were reserved for the reservation in relation to the Milk River. Soon there came a huge demand for water by settlers which was an issue for the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation. [9] As non-Indian settlers began moving closer to the Fort Belknap Reservation, the settlers claimed rights to the water. The settlers did things such as building dams and reservoirs which prevented the reservation from receiving water needed for agricultural purposes. [8] The settlers used the terms of the appropriative water system to support their actions, claiming that they had appropriated the water before the Natives living on the reservation had put the water to beneficial use. [8]

Decision

The United States Supreme Court case of Winters v. United States held that the decree enjoining the companies from utilizing river waters intended for a Reservation was affirmed. It was also held that when reservations were created by the United States government, they were created with the intention of allowing indigenous settlements to become self-reliant and self-sufficient. As reservations require water to become self-sufficient in areas such as agriculture, it was found that water rights were reserved for tribes as an implication of the treaties that created the reservations. [10]

Majority opinion

Associate Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the majority opinion. Associate Justice Joseph McKenna, Supreme court of the United States.jpg
Associate Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the majority opinion.

The Supreme Court came to the decision that the Fort Belknap reservation had reserved water rights through the 1888 agreement which created the Fort Belknap American Reservation. It was found unnecessary for the natives to have to reserve the water rights if they had already reserved the rights to the land for agricultural purposes because the natives would have no use for the farmland if they could not have access to a water source. [11] It was decided that the water rights of the Milk River were implied when the Fort Belknap Reservation was created in order to uphold provisions that had been previously stated. [12] The majority opinion was delivered to the United States Supreme Court by associate justice, Joseph McKenna. McKenna wrote that five of the defendants named in the bill failed to answer. He wrote that the other defendants who did answer filed a joint and several answer. From this answer, the case was heard and a decree was entered against all of the defendants. It was determined by the Supreme Court that the reasoning behind the establishment of reservations was to provide a permanent homeland for the natives. [13] The majority opinion found that the decree held. [14] The majority opinion was held by Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller and Associate Justices William R. Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Joseph McKenna, William H. Moody, Rufus Wheeler Peckham, and Edward D. White. [12] After the verdict had been reached, the United States government allocated $25,000 to be used for the purpose of extending the irrigation system on the Milk River for use by the Fort Belknap American reservation. [15]

Dissenting opinion

Associate justice David J. Brewer dissented from the majority opinion. [12]

Implications

The Winters court reasoned that water rights were implied in the agreement that had been made with the natives in 1888, when the reservation was created. This agreement stated that the Fort Belknap Reservation had been created with the intention of the tribal people being able to become self-sufficient. The court noted that land without water has no value, especially when the purpose of a land was to help a group become self-supporting in the way of agriculture. Therefore, a reservation of water goes along with the reservation of the land. [12] Water rights may be implied from reservations made by presidential executive order, or reservations which are created by an act of Congress. [16] Other implications of this court case include setting more of a standard for indigenous water rights along with setting a precedent for later Supreme Court cases which deal with implied water rights.

Winters rights

Winters rights refers to the reserved water rights cases that followed Winters. [17]

The amount of water reserved for the use of tribes is equal to the amount of water that would sufficiently irrigate all of the irrigable acreage within the reservation. In some cases this part of the Winters rights is extended to include water used not just for agricultural purposes, but for all purposes. For example, a Bureau of Indian Affairs document breaks down what the BIA believes to be the estimated water requirements of all different reservations, including the Fort Belknap Reservation in Montana. This document states that the Fort Belknap reservation will need water for uses such as recreation, wildlife, forestry, energy, minerals, industrial use, domestic use, and agricultural use. These uses are listed in ascending order of the amount of water estimated to be required. [19]

It is also said that Winters rights are not lost by an reservation's lack of use of the water; the rights apply even if the reservation is not using their full portion of water. [20]

Effects following ruling

Although the ruling of Winters v. United States was made very clear, accounts show that water rights relating to reservations were put aside and neglected for decades after the ruling. [8] While the United States government was caught up in the emergence of non-native settlers moving west, the government seemed to turn a blind eye to many non-native settlers who were making use of water sources which, under the terms of Winters v. United States, had been reserved for reservation use. [8] The United States Supreme Court was not called upon to further define reserved water rights until the case of Arizona v. California in 1963.

Winters v. United States was a United States Supreme Court Case with many implications. One thing that makes this case so monumental is the precedent that is set by it for United States Supreme Court cases that would follow it.

Arizona v. California

Arizona v. California was a set of 11 United States Supreme Court cases dealing with water rights. [21] These cases took place between the years of 1931 and 2006. The initial question of this case was to determine how much water from the Colorado river Arizona was entitled to. Many western states became involved in the debate over the rights of the water from the Colorado River, and finally the United States government became involved stating that several federal establishments, including five reservations, had water rights as defined by Winters v. United States. [22] This United States Supreme Court case helped to solve a problem found in the case Winters v. United States. While the United States Supreme Court case of Winters v. United States held that Reservations do have reserved water rights equal to the amount of water needed on the reservation to sufficiently irrigate all of the irrigable reservation acreage, there was always the question of how to decide what amount of water was needed to sufficiently irrigate on the reservations. [17] Arizona v. California offers the solution of adjudication to help fix this problem. [23]

Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona

This case dealt with either the United States as trustee or certain tribes asserting their rights to have certain water rights in Arizona or Montana determined in federal court. The court ruled that all limits that any federal legislation put on state-court jurisdiction over indigenous water rights were removed by the McCarran Amendment. This piece of legislation allowed state courts jurisdiction to determine indigenous water rights. This ruling included suits brought by tribes and pertaining to only indigenous claims. The decision of this case was that the judgment in each of the cases was reversed, and the cases were to be reviewed further. [24]

Nevada v. United States

This United States Supreme Court case centered around water rights involving the Truckee River. The defendants in the case were all people who used water from the Truckee River, while the plaintiff was the United States. The defendants argued against tribal use of the water in the Truckee River stating that the American tribes were not parties to the original cause of action between the United States and the non-indigenous users of the water. The court ruled that the tribes did have water rights and were allowed to make use of the water in the Truckee River. [25]

United States v. New Mexico

The United States claimed to have reserved the use of water out of the Rio Mimbres stream only where necessary to preserve the environment and wildlife. For instance, to care for the timber in the forest or to secure favorable water flows. The United States Supreme Court upheld the ruling made earlier by the Supreme Court of New Mexico. This ruling stated that the United States did not have reserved rights in the Rio Mimbres stream when it came to recreational purposes. [26]

Cappaert v. United States

Devils Hole cavern in Nevada became a detached part of Death Valley National Monument in 1952, by a proclamation of President Harry S. Truman made under the Antiquities Act. The cavern is home to a rare species of desert fish, the Devils Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis). In 1968 the Cappaerts, who were ranchers, were granted an application by the Nevada state engineer to begin using a water supply which took water from Devil's Hole cavern, which lowered water levels in the cavern and endangered the viability of the fish. The federal government sought to place limits on the Cappaerts' use of the water, so as to protect the fish from extinction. [27]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States. The Court held that the implied-reservation-of-water-rights doctrine applies to groundwater as well as surface water. The Court next reaffirmed that "Federal water rights are not dependent upon state law or state procedures and they need not be adjudicated only in state courts." Finally, the Court held that when the United States had reserved Devil's Hole in 1952, "it acquired by reservation water rights in unappropriated appurtenant water sufficient to maintain the level of the pool to preserve its scientific value" (i.e., preserve the fish, which are "objects of historic or scientific interest" under the American Antiquities Preservation Act). [27]

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States

The United States Supreme Court case Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States concerned the abstention doctrine which helped to prevent duplicate litigation between state courts and federal courts. [28]

United States v. Powers

This United States Supreme Court case occurred over the argument of tribal water rights, and whether or not the water rights are passed along with the tribal land. When reservations would sell allotments of land to non-tribe members, those to whom the land was sold would want the same proportion of the reservation's water that the previous indigenous land owner had received. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier ruling that water rights are passed along with the land, meaning that a person who purchases land from an reservation also purchases an allotment of the water source used on the reservation. [29]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Reorganization Act</span> United States Law

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler–Howard Act, was U.S. federal legislation that dealt with the status of American Indians in the United States. It was the centerpiece of what has been often called the "Indian New Deal". The major goal was to reverse the traditional goal of cultural assimilation of Native Americans into American society and to strengthen, encourage and perpetuate the tribes and their historic Native American cultures in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian reservation</span> Land managed by Native American nations under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs

An Indian reservation is an area of land held and governed by a federally recognized Native American tribal nation whose government is accountable to the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs and not to the state government in which it is located. Some of the country's 574 federally recognized tribes govern more than one of the 326 Indian reservations in the United States, while some share reservations, and others have no reservation at all. Historical piecemeal land allocations under the Dawes Act facilitated sales to non–Native Americans, resulting in some reservations becoming severely fragmented, with pieces of tribal and privately held land being treated as separate enclaves. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political and legal difficulties.

<i>United States v. Washington</i> 1974 court case

United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, aff'd, 520 F.2d 676, commonly known as the Boldt Decision, was a legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government. The tribes ceded their land to the United States but reserved the right to fish as they always had. This included their traditional locations off the designated reservations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fort Peck Indian Reservation</span> Indian reservation in Montana, United States

The Fort Peck Indian Reservation is located near Fort Peck, Montana, in the northeast part of the state. It is the home of several federally recognized bands of Assiniboine, Nakota, Lakota, and Dakota peoples of Native Americans.

The cultural assimilation of Native Americans refers to a series of efforts by the United States to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream European–American culture between the years of 1790 and 1920. George Washington and Henry Knox were first to propose, in the American context, the cultural assimilation of Native Americans. They formulated a policy to encourage the so-called "civilizing process". With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens. Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process for minorities.

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if they were committed on an Indian reservation. Kagama, a Yurok Native American (Indian) accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Act.

<i>Talton v. Mayes</i> 1896 United States Supreme Court case

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.

In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States the term treaty rights specifically refers to rights for indigenous peoples enumerated in treaties with settler societies that arose from European colonization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian country jurisdiction</span>

Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as Worcester v. Georgia, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, Montana v. United States, and McGirt v. Oklahoma.

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed two issues: (1) Whether the title of the Big Horn Riverbed rested with the United States, in trust for the Crow Nation or passed to the State of Montana upon becoming a state and (2) Whether Crow Nation retained the power to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands owned in fee-simple by a non-tribal member. First, the Court held that Montana held title to the Big Horn Riverbed because the Equal Footing Doctrine required the United States to pass title to the newly incorporated State. Second, the Court held that Crow Nation lacked the power to regulate nonmember hunting and fishing on fee-simple land owned by nonmembers, but within the bounds of its reservation. More broadly, the Court held that Tribes could not exercise regulatory authority over nonmembers on fee-simple land within the reservation unless (1) the nonmember entered a "consensual relationship" with the Tribe or its members or (2) the nonmember's "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Indian country jurisdiction in the United States that decided that opening up reservation lands for settlement by non-Indians does not constitute the intent to diminish reservation boundaries. Therefore, reservation boundaries would not be diminished unless specifically determined through acts of Congress.

Water law in the United States refers to the Water resources law laws regulating water as a resource in the United States. Beyond issues common to all jurisdictions attempting to regulate water's uses, water law in the United States must contend with:

Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968), is a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Menominee Indian Tribe kept their historical hunting and fishing rights even after the federal government ceased to recognize the tribe. It was a landmark decision in Native American case law.

South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress specifically abrogated treaty rights with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as to hunting and fishing rights on reservation lands that were acquired for a reservoir.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy:

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

The Montana Water Court is a court of law in the U.S. state of Montana which has jurisdiction over the adjudication of water rights. The filing, verification, recording, and enforcement of water rights in the Montana Territory and, later, the state of Montana were considered highly inadequate until 1972, when a new state constitution required a more robust, highly centralized water rights legal system. Implementation of this system led to the establishment of the Water Court in 1979, after six years of mixed success with an administrative solution. The Water Court consists of a Chief Water Judge, Associate Water Judge, and four District Water Judges, but most work is handled by special masters. The process of identifying, verifying, and adjudicating water rights is a complex one, and budgetary and personnel issues have slowed the work at times. Appeals from the Water Court are made directly to the Montana Supreme Court.

References

  1. ↑ Duthu, N. (2008). "American Indians and the Law", p. 105.Penguin Group Inc., New York. ISBN   978-0-670-01857-4.
  2. ↑ Waldman, C. (2009). "Atlas of the North American Indian", p. 241.Checkmark Books. ISBN   978-0-8160-6858-6.
  3. ↑ Brewer, Justice. "Winters vs. United States". Retrieved on 2009-9-14
  4. ↑ Thorson, John. (2006). "Tribal Water Rights", p. 35-36.University of Arizona Press. ISBN   978-0-8165-2482-2.
  5. ↑ American Indian Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1979), pp. 155-169 Published by: University of Oklahoma College of Law
  6. ↑ Canby, William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 426.Thomson West. ISBN   0-314-14640-7.
  7. ↑ Canby, William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 427.Thomson West. ISBN   0-314-14640-7.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Canby, William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 429.Thomson West. ISBN   0-314-14640-7.
  9. ↑ Shurts, John. (2000). "Indian Reserved Water Rights", p. 15.University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN   978-0-8061-3210-5.
  10. ↑ Thorson, John. (2006). "Tribal Water Rights", p. 204.University of Arizona Press. ISBN   978-0-8165-2482-2.
  11. ↑ Canby, William (2004). American Indian Law. Thomson West. pp.  430. ISBN   978-0-314-14640-3.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Winters v. United States., 207 U.S. 564 (1908).
  13. 1 2 Thorson, John (2006). Tribal Water Rights. University of Arizona Press. p.  22. ISBN   978-0-8165-2482-2.
  14. ↑ Find Law. "WINTERS v. U. S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908)" Retrieved on 2009-10-14.
  15. ↑ Cortelyou, Geo B. Secretary of the Treasury. "Letter From Secretary of Treasury to the House of Representatives" Retrieved on 2009-10-14.
  16. ↑ Bureau of Land Management. "Federal Reserved Water Rights". Retrieved on 2009-10-13
  17. 1 2 Canby, William. (2004). American Indian Law, p. 431. Thomson West. ISBN   0-314-14640-7.
  18. 1 2 3 Thorson, John. (2006). Tribal Water Right, p. 78-79. University of Arizona Press. ISBN   978-0-8165-2482-2.
  19. ↑ Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, 1978, Report No. 262.
  20. ↑ Canby, William. (2004). American Indian Law, p. 433. Thomson West. ISBN   0-314-14640-7.
  21. ↑ "American Indian Law Review." LexisNexis. 13 October 2009.
  22. ↑ "STATE OF ARIZONA v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 October 2009.
  23. ↑ Canby, William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 437.Thomson West. ISBN   0-314-14640-7.
  24. ↑ "ARIZONA ET AL. v. SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE OF ARIZONA ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 October 2009.
  25. ↑ "NEVADA v. UNITED STATES ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 October 2009.
  26. ↑ "UNITED STATES v. NEW MEXICO." LexisNexis. 13 October 2009.
  27. 1 2 Cappaert v. United States , 426 U.S. 128 (1976).
  28. ↑ "COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ET AL. v. UNITED STATES." LexisNexis. 13 October 2009.
  29. ↑ "UNITED STATES v. POWERS ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 October 2009.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.