Lexplug logoLexplug

Winters v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
1908 U.S. LEXIS 1415, 207 U.S. 564, 28 S. Ct. 207 (1908)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The creation of a federal Indian reservation by agreement implicitly reserves the right to use sufficient water from sources on or bordering the reservation to fulfill the purposes for which the reservation was created, and this right is senior to any subsequent appropriations under state law.


Facts:

  • In May 1888, the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine tribes entered into an agreement with the United States, ceding a large portion of their tribal lands in Montana.
  • The agreement established the much smaller Fort Belknap Indian Reservation for the tribes.
  • The lands of the reservation were arid and required irrigation to be suitable for agriculture.
  • The stated purpose of the agreement was to encourage the tribes to transition from a nomadic lifestyle to a 'pastoral and civilized' one, which depended on farming and ranching.
  • The Milk River is a waterway that borders or flows through the reservation.
  • The 1888 agreement did not contain any express provision reserving water rights from the Milk River for the use of the tribes.
  • After the reservation was created, Henry Winters and other non-Indian settlers acquired land upstream from the reservation along the Milk River.
  • These settlers, acting under Montana state law, constructed dams and reservoirs that diverted water from the Milk River for their own irrigation needs, significantly reducing the water available to the reservation.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States, as trustee for the tribes of the Fort Belknap Reservation, filed a complaint in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana.
  • The suit sought to enjoin Henry Winters and other upstream landowners from diverting water from the Milk River to the detriment of the reservation.
  • The Circuit Court (the trial court) issued a decree in favor of the United States.
  • Winters and the other defendants (appellants) appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decree.
  • The appellants then brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States for review.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an agreement between the United States and Native American tribes creating a reservation on arid land implicitly reserve the rights to sufficient water from adjacent sources to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, even if water rights are not explicitly mentioned?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice McKenna

Yes. An agreement creating an Indian reservation on arid land implicitly reserves water rights sufficient to fulfill the primary purposes of the reservation. The purpose of the 1888 agreement was to transition the tribes to an agricultural and pastoral lifestyle, a purpose that would be impossible to achieve on arid lands without irrigation. It is inconceivable that the tribes would have ceded vast territories in exchange for a smaller, arid reservation without retaining the water necessary to make that land valuable and livable. A canon of construction for treaties with Native American tribes dictates that any ambiguities must be resolved in their favor. Therefore, the court must infer that the parties intended to reserve the necessary water. The federal government had the power to reserve these waters, and the subsequent admission of Montana to the Union did not extinguish these pre-existing federal reserved rights.


Dissenting - Justice Brewer

This justice dissented without a written opinion.



Analysis:

This case established the foundational doctrine of federal implied reserved water rights, commonly known as the 'Winters Doctrine.' This doctrine is a cornerstone of Native American law and Western water law, creating a powerful exception to the prior appropriation systems dominant in western states. By giving tribes a senior water right with a priority date of the reservation's creation, the decision provides a legal basis for tribes to claim water essential for their economic development and cultural survival. The doctrine has been extended beyond Indian reservations to other federal enclaves, such as national parks and forests, impacting water allocation throughout the American West.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Winters v. United States (1908) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Winters v. United States