Federal Water Rights

Question 1

Winters v. United States (U.S. 1908)

Answer 1

Case in which Court held that where the U.S. retained an interest in land, it also retained a water right.

Court inferred a water right in the Treaty with the Tribe because the purpose of the Treaty (establish reservation and have Tribe become farmers) could only be accomplished with a water right.

Question 2

Federal Reserved Water Rights Doctrine

Answer 2

When U.S. reserves land for particular purposes through treaty, legislation, or executive land (or acquires land in some instances), the U.S. expressly or impliedly reserves the quantity of unappropriated water, at the time of the federal action, necessary to accomplish the purposes of the reservation.

Question 3

Arizona v. California (U.S. 1963)

Answer 3

Interstate allocation case where federal government intervenes as trustee for Indian reservations, asserting federal reserved water rights based on Winters. But also asserts claims for non-Indian federal lands (e.g., wildlife refuges).

Court holds that principle underlying reservation of water rights for Indian reservations is equally applicable to other federal establishments such as National Recreation Areas and National Forests.

Less than 5 years after Arizona v. California, you get the McCarren Amendment.

Court also imposed new standard for how much water should be reserved: Practicable Irrigated Acreage (PIA).