OCR Text |
Show 582 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS tion without intending to reserve waters necessary to make the reser- vation livable. The Court rejected all of the arguments. As to whether water was intended to be reserved, the Court said, at p. 576: "The lands were arid and, without irrigation, were practically valueless. And yet, it is contended, the means of irrigation were deliberately given up by the Indians and deliberately accepted by the Government. The lands ceded were, it is true, also arid; and some argument may be urged, and is urged, that with their cession there was the cession of the waters, without which they would, be valueless, and 'civilized communities could not be established thereon.' And this, it is further contended, the In- dians knew, and yet made no reservation of the waters. We real- ize that there is a conflict of implications, but that which makes for the retention of the waters is of greater force than that which makes for their cession." The Court in Winters concluded that the Government, when it created that Indian Reservation, intended to deal fairly with the Indi- ans by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Winters has been followed by this Court as recently as 1939 in United States v. Powers, 305 U.S. 527. We follow it now and agree that the United States did reserve the water rights for the Indi- ans effective as of the time the Indian Reservations were created. This means, as the Master held, that these water rights, having vested before the Act became effective on June 25, 1929, are "present perfected rights" and as such are entitled to priority under the Act. We also agree with the Master's conclusion as to the quantity of wTater intended to be reserved. He found that the water was intended to satisfy the future as well as the present needs of the Indian Reserva- tions and ruled that enough water was reserved to irrigate all the prac- ticably irrigable acreage on the reservations. Arizona, on the other hand, contends that the quantity of water reserved should be measured by the Indians' "reasonably foreseeable needs," which, in fact, means by the number of Indians. How many Indians there will be and what their future uses will be can only be guessed. We have concluded, as did the Master, that the only feasible and fair way by which reserved water for the reservations can be measured is irrigable acreage. The various acreages of irrigable land which the Master found to be on the different reservations we find to be reasonable. We disagree with the Master's decision to determine the disputed boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mohave Indian Reservation. We hold that it is unnecessary to resolve those disputes here. Should a dispute over title arise because of some future refusal by the Secretary to deliver water to either area, the dis- pute can be settled at that time. The Master ruled that the principle underlying the reservation of water rights for Indian Reservations was equally applicable to other federal establishments such as National Recreation Areas and Na- tional Forests. We agree with the conclusions of the Master that the United States intended to reserve water sufficient for the future re- quirements of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge, and the Gila National Forest. We reject the claim of the United States that it is entitled to the use, without charge against its consumption, of any waters that would have |