OCR Text |
Show 580 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS by Executive Order." Other reservations were created by Executive Orders and amendments to them, ranging in dates from 1870 to 1907.100 The Master found both as a matter of fact and law that when the United States created these reservations or added to them, it reserved not only land but also the use of enough water from the Colorado to irrigate the irrigable portions of the reserved lands. The aggregate quantity of water which the Master held was reserved for all the reservations is about 1,000,000 acre-feet, to be used on around 135,000 irrigable acres of land. Here, as before the Master, Arizona argues that the United States had no power to make a reservation of navigable waters after Arizona became a State; that navigable waters could not be reserved by Executive Orders; that the United States did not intend to reserve water for the Indian Reservations; that the amount of water reserved should be measured by the reasonably foreseeable needs of the Indians living on the reservation rather than by the number of irrigable acres; and finally, that the judicial doctrine of equitable apportionment should be used to divide the water between the Indians and the other people in the State of Arizona. The last argument is easily answered. The doctrine of equitable apportionment is a method of resolving water disputes between States. It was created by this Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction over controversies in which States are parties. An Indian Reservation is not a State. And while Congress has sometimes left Indian Reserva- tions considerable 'power to manage their own affairs, we are not convinced by Arizona's argument that each reservation is so much like a State that its rights to water should be determined by the doctrine of equitable apportionment. Moreover, even were we to treat an Indian Reservation like a State, equitable apportionment would still not control since, under our view, the Indian claims here are governed by the statutes and Executive Orders creating the reservations. Arizona's contention that the Federal Government had no power, after Arizona became a State, to reserve waters for the use and benefit of federally reserved lands rests largely upon statements in PollarcPs Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 (1845), and SMvely v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894). Those cases and others that followed them101 gave rise to the doctrine that lands underlying navigable waters within territory acquired by the Government are held in trust for future States and that title to such lands is automatically vested in the States upon admission to the Union. But those cases involved only the shores of and lands beneath navigable waters. They do not determine the prob- lem before us and cannot be accepted as limiting the broad powers of the United States to regulate navigable wraters under the Commerce Clause and to regulate government lands under Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution. We have no doubt about the power of the United States 98 See Executive Orders of November 22, 1873. November 16, 1874, and May 15, 1876. See also Executive Order of November 22, 1915. These orders may be found in 1 U.S. Dept. of Interior, Executive Orders Relating to Indian Reservations 6-7 (1912) ; 2 id., at 5-6 (1©'22). 100 Executive Orders of January 9, 1884 (Yuma), September 19, 1890 (Fort Mohave), February 2., 1911 (Fort Mohave), September 27, 1917 (Cocopah). For these orders, see 1 id., at 12-13, 63-64 (1912) ; 2 id., at 5 (1922). The Chemehuevi Reservation was estab- lished by the Secretary of Interior on February 2, 1907, pending congressional approval. 101 See, e.g., United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 29-30 (1947) ; United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54-55 (1926). |