User:Misstbird/Misstbird's Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Misstbird

User:Misstbird/Misstbird's Sandbox/Canons

User:Misstbird/Misstbird's Sandbox/United States v. Winans

I have chose to work on the Winters v. United States article. At the moment the article gives a general over view of Winters v. United States and cases following the ruling and political implications for the case.


The background discusses why water is extremely important to American Indian tribes living in the West and the two systems dividing water rights: riparian and appropriate and how these systems come into play for the Winters case. In this section I plan to add water rights adjudication, as well as put into context the Montana State water laws during the time of the case. There is a section on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation which could use more development on allotment; both proceedings and implications. Under the "decisions" sections i will add more information about the court decision and appeals process.

I plan on adding a link to U.S. v. Winnans and Canons articles.

Winters v. United States
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)
ArgumentOral argument
Holding
The decree enjoining the companies from utilizing river waters intended for an Indian 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 opinion
MajorityMcKenna

Winters v. United States is 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 American Indians 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 American Indian water rights, and how rights to the water relate to the continuing survival and self-sufficiency of American Indian people.[4]

Background[edit]

Fort Belknap American Indian Reservation[edit]

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 non-Indian settlers which was an issue for the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation.[5] 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 build dams and reservoirs which prevented the reservation from receiving water needed for agricultural purposes.[6] The settlers used the terms of the Appropriative water system to support their actions claiming that they had appropriated the water before the American Indians living on the reservation had put the water to beneficial use.[6]

Prior Proceedings of Winters v. United States[edit]

The proceedings in the District Court stated that in the complaint, US Attorney Rasch alleged facts that would support reservation water rights on a number of different theories; prior appropriation, common-law riparian rights, a right to a water flow "necessary" for government land and treaty reserved rights. Most of these theories, however, fell away during litigation. At both the trial and the appellate levels, Rasch believed that riparian rights was his strongest legal theory. Although whatever had attracted riparian rights for the U.S. Attorney, was not shared bye the courts, it was ignored. The theory of water rights necessary to federal lands played a supporting role in the litigation, although at no point did any of the courts adopt it as a primary approach.

The favored judicial they throughout the litigation was a reserved treaty right to water. District Judge Hunt relied "almost wholly on a treaty right to water analysis," with particular attention to the new Supreme court decision in U.S. v. Winnans. This was a case about treaty fishing rights in Washington State that preserved the tribal fishery, the treaty expressly reserved to them exclusive fishing rights on streams within the reservation, and "the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the territory, of erecting temporary buildings for curing them." The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McKenna, held that the treaty reserved specific rights to the Indians. Applying the Canons that treaties should be considered as the Indians understood them, the court noted that the right to fish at traditional places allowing them to hunt and fish on the land.

Proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, which the WInters case reached the twice, first on an interlocutory appeal from the preliminary injunction and later on appeal from the permanent injunction. The second appeal discussed the same question of the first, with the exception of the question of proper treaty interpretation. The Ninth Circuit's decision starts on a plaintive note: Appeal's complaint being lengthy. Possibly because U.S. Attorney Carl Rasch argued all three theories he had put forth at the district level that survived the summer hearing: riparian rights, water necessary for federally-reserved land, and treaty rights. Like the district court, Pasch's argument he assumed to be strongest was bypassed, the riparian rights, and the Ninth Circuit based its decision on the treaty rights analysis. [7].

The courts analysis of the treaty right followed that of judge Hunt, who had followed the analysis in the new U.S. v. Winnans case. The tribes had struck a bargain with the United States. The language of the Ninth Court on the treaty rights issue goes further that its previous opinion, the district court opinion before it, or the Supreme Court opinion to come. Although the courts involved in the Winters litigation relied on the Indian law Canons to help discern he intent of the 1888 agreement, most of the opinions found as inference that water had been reserved. [8].

The Supreme Court Decision[edit]

The 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. From this answer, the case was heard and a decree was entered against all of the defendants. I was also held that when American Indian reservations were created by the United States government, they were created with the intention of allowing American Indian settlements to become self reliant and 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. 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 Indian reservation. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).


Water Rights[edit]

Water rights for American Indians go much further than the water itself, as the rights also control where they are allowed to fish.

Water rights are extremely important to American Indians, especially those American Indian tribes living in the West, where water supplies are limited, it becomes more important to establish who has rights and where. American Indian reservations, and those who live within them, rely on water sources for the water necessary for them to be self-sufficient. American Indian reservations rely on streams and rivers for agricultural purposes. Not only is the water itself important to the American Indian 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 who controls the water ultimately has control over life on the reservation.[9]


Riparian System[edit]

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.[10] 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[edit]

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.[11] 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.[6]

Decision[edit]

The United States Supreme Court case of Winters v. United States held that the decree enjoining the companies from utilizing river waters intended for an Indian Reservation was affirmed. It was also held that when American Indian reservations were created by the United States government, they were created with the intention of allowing the American Indian settlements to become self reliant and self sufficient. As American Indian 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.[12]

Majority Opinion[edit]

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 Indian Reservation. It was found unnecessary for the Indians to have to reserve the water rights if they had already reserved the rights to the land for agricultural purposes because the Indians would have no use for the farm land if they could not have access to a water source.[13] It was decided that the water rights of the Milk River were implied when the Fort Belknap American Indian Reservation was created in order to uphold provisions that had been previously stated.[14] 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 American Indian reservations was to provide a permanent homeland for the American Indians.[15] The majority opinion found that the decree held.[16] 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.[14] 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 Indian reservation.[17]

Dissenting Opinions[edit]

Associate justice David J. Brewer dissented from the majority opinion.[14]

Implications[edit]

The reasoning behind the court's decision to give the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation the water rights came from the agreement that had been made with the American Indians when the Fort Belknap Reservation had been created in 1888. 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 also held that land without water has no value, especially when the purpose of land is to help a group such as the Fort Belknap Reservation become self-supporting in the way of agriculture. Because of these findings by the court, the reservation of water goes along with the reservation of the land.[14] This idea of implied water rights holds true in relation to American Indian reservations made by presidential executive order, or American Indian reservations which are created by an act of Congress.[18] Other implications of this court case include setting more of a standard for American Indian water rights along with setting a precedent for later Supreme Court cases which deal with implied water rights.

"Winters Rights"[edit]

Winter Rights are in many cases referred to as "reserved water rights". This name is derived from the United States Supreme Court case Winter v. United States, and deals with the effects that the case had on American Indian water rights.[19] The Winters Rights established several things in relation to American Indian water rights. Firstly, Winters Rights declares that they are defined by the federal government and federal law which controls them. Next, Winters Rights states that when an American Indian reservation is established by either a treaty, statute, or executive order, implied reservation of water rights is included in said treaty, statute, or executive order. These water rights apply to water sources that are either within the reservation or bordering it. Winters Rights then states that the water rights are reserved as soon as the portion of the American Indian reservation cases where competing users of the water source have prior appropriation dates of said water source, they will take precedence over the American Indian rights. Only those with prior appropriation dates take precedence, those with later dates are subordinate to the American Indian reservation in question. In most cases, it is found that American Indian tribes do in general have senior priority dates for quantities of surface water than competing settlements.[20] Winters Rights then stated that the amount of water which would be reserved for the use of an American Indian tribe would be 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 Winter Rights is changed to include not only agricultural purposes for water use, but for all purposes of the American Indian reservation. An example of this would be a document from the Bureau of Indian Affairs breaks down what they believe to be the estimated water requirements of all different American Indian reservations, including the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation in Montana. This document states that the Fort Belknap American Indian reservation will need water for uses such as recreation, wildlife, forestry, energy, minerals, industrial use, domestic use, and agricultural use. This uses are listed in ascending order of the amount of water it is estimated each use will need.[21] It is also said that Winters Rights are not lost by an American Indian reservation's lack of use of the water. The Winters Rights will apply to the reservation if and when the reservation is not using their full portion of water.[22] The Winters Rights include the idea that while treaties which were made in the creation of American Indian reservations did not specifically grant water rights, there was an implied reservation of the water rights which were not granted.[15]

Effects Following Ruling[edit]

Although the ruling of Winters v. United States was made very clear, accounts show that water rights relating to American Indian reservations were put aside and neglected for decades after the ruling.[6] While the United States government was caught up in the emergence of non-Indian settlers moving west, the government seemed to turn a blind eye to many non-Indian settlers who were making use of water sources which, under the terms of Winters v. United States, had been reserved for American Indian reservation use.[6] The United States Supreme Court was not called upon to further define American Indian reserved water rights until the case of Arizona v. California in 1963.

Related Cases[edit]

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[edit]

Arizona v. California was a set of 11 United States Supreme Court cases dealing with water rights.[23] 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 American Indian reservations, had water rights as defined by Winters v. United States.[24] 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 American Indian 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 American Indian reservations.[19] Arizona v. California offers the solution of adjudication to help fix this problem.[25]

Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona[edit]

This case dealt with either the United States as trustee or certain American Indian tribes asserting their rights to have certain Indian 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 Indian water rights were removed by the McCarran Amendment. This piece of legislation allowed state courts jurisdiction to determine American Indian water rights. This ruling included suits brought by American Indian tribes and pertaining to only American Indian 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.[26]

Nevada v. United States[edit]

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 American Indian tribal use of the water in the Truckee River stating that the American Indian tribes were not parties to the original cause of action between the United States and the non-American Indian users of the water. The court ruled that the American Indian tribes did have water rights and were allowed to make use of the water in the Truckee River.[27]

United States v. New Mexico[edit]

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.[28]

Cappaert v. United States[edit]

Devils Hole cavern in Nevada became a national monument in 1952. The cavern is home to a rare species of desert fish. In 1968 the Cappaerts began using a water supply which took water from Devil's Hole cavern. This action lowered water levels in the cavern dangerously in relation to the livelihood of the desert fish living within the cavern. The court ruled that the Cappaerts should have a limit of water they would be allowed to pump out, which would still leave a sufficient amount of water for the fish. It was found that when Devil's Hole was named a national monument the President reserved unappropriated waters necessary to the purpose of the reservation which included the preservation of the pool and the desert fish residing in said pool.[29]

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States[edit]

The United States Supreme Court case Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States was a court case resulting in the abstention doctrine which helped to prevent duplicate litigation between state courts and federal courts.[30]

United States v. Powers[edit]

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 American Indian 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 American Indian 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 American Indian reservation also purchases an allotment of the water source used on the reservation.[31]

References[edit]

  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). "Atlast 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. ^ Shurts, John. (2000). "Indian Reserved Water Rights", p. 15.University of Oklahoma Press.ISBN 0806132109 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
  6. ^ a b c d e Canby,William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 429.Thomson West.ISBN 0-314-14640-7. Cite error: The named reference "Canby 2004 p. 429" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ Canby,William. (2004)
  8. ^ Canby,William. (2004)
  9. ^ American Indian Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1979), pp. 155-169 Published by: University of Oklahoma College of Law
  10. ^ Canby,William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 426.Thomson West.ISBN 0-314-14640-7.
  11. ^ Canby,William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 427.Thomson West.ISBN 0-314-14640-7.
  12. ^ Thorson, John. (2006). "Tribal Water Rights", p. 204.University of Arizona Press.ISBN 978-0-8165-2482-2.
  13. ^ Canby, William (2004). American Indian Law. Thomson West. p. 430. ISBN 0314146407.
  14. ^ a b c d Focus West. "Winters v. United States 1908". Retrieved on 2009-10-13 Cite error: The named reference "Winters v. United States 1908" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  15. ^ a b Thorson, John. (2006). "Tribal Water Rights", p. 22.University of Arizona Press.ISBN 978-0-8165-2482-2.
  16. ^ Find Law. "WINTERS v. U. S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908)" Retrieved on 2009-10-14.
  17. ^ Cortelyou, Geo B. Secretary of the Treasury. "Letter From Secretary of Treasury to the House of Representatives" Retrieved on 2009-10-14.
  18. ^ Bureau of Land Management. "Federal Reserved Water Rights". Retrieved on 2009-10-13
  19. ^ a b Canby,William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 431.Thomson West.ISBN 0-314-14640-7.
  20. ^ Thorson, John. (2006). "Tribal Water Rights", p. 78-79.University of Arizona Press.ISBN 978-0-8165-2482-2.
  21. ^ Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, 1978, Report No. 262.
  22. ^ Canby,William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 433.Thomson West.ISBN 0-314-14640-7.
  23. ^ "American Indian Law Review." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.
  24. ^ "STATE OF ARIZONA v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.
  25. ^ Canby,William. (2004). "American Indian Law", p. 437.Thomson West.ISBN 0-314-14640-7.
  26. ^ "ARIZONA ET AL. v. SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE OF ARIZONA ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.
  27. ^ "NEVADA v. UNITED STATES ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.
  28. ^ "UNITED STATES v. NEW MEXICO." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.
  29. ^ "CAPPAERT ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.
  30. ^ "COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ET AL. v. UNITED STATES." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.
  31. ^ "UNITED STATES v. POWERS ET AL." LexisNexis. 13 Oct. 2009.


Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:American Indian reservations Category:1907 in the United States Category:1907 in United States case law

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Misstbird/Misstbird%27s_Sandbox&oldid=1222770844"