Henry Winters v. United States
Citation | 207 U.S. 564,52 L.Ed. 340,28 S.Ct. 207 |
Decision Date | 06 January 1908 |
Docket Number | No. 158,158 |
Parties | HENRY WINTERS, John W. Acker, Chris Cruse, Agnes Downs, et al., Appts., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
This suit was brought by the United States to restrain appellants and others from constructing or maintaining dams or reservoirs on the Milk river in the state of Montana, or in any manner preventing the water of the river or its tributaries from flowing to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation.
An interlocutory order was granted, enjoining the defendants in the suit from interfering in any manner with the use by the reservation of 5,000 inches of the water of the river. The order was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 74 C. C. A. 666, 143, Fed. 740. Upon the return of the case to the circuit court, an order was taken pro confesso against five of the defendants. The appellants filed a joint and several answer, upon which and the bill a decree was entered making the preliminary injunction permanent. The decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 78 C. C. A. 546, 148 Fed. 684.
The allegations of the bill, so far as necessary to state them, are as follows: On the 1st day of May 1888, a tract of land, the property of the United States, was reserved and set apart 'as an Indian reservation as and for a permanent home and abiding place of the Gros Ventre and Assiniboing bands or tribes of Indians in the state (then territory) of Montana, designated and known as the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation.' The tract has ever since been used as an Indian reservation and as the home and abiding place of the Indians. Its boundaries were fixed and defined as follows:
'Beginning at a point in the middle of the main channel of Milk river, opposite the mouth of Snake creek; thence due south to a point due west of the western extremity of the Little Rocky mountains; thence due east to the crest of said mountains at their western extremity, and thence following the southern crest of said mountains to the eastern extremity thereof; thence in a northerly direction in a direct line to a point in the middle of the main channel of Milk river opposite the mouth of People's creek; thence up Milk river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of beginning.'
Milk river, designated as the northern boundary of the reservation, is a nonnavigable stream. Large portions of the lands embraced within the reservation are well fitted and adapted for pasturage and the feeding and grazing of stock, and since the establishment of the reservation the United States and the Indians have had and have large herds of cattle and large numbers of horses grazing upon the land within the reservation, 'being and situate along and bordering upon said Milk river.' Other portions of the reservation are 'adapted for and susceptible of farming and cultivation and the pursuit of agriculture, and productive in the raising thereon of grass, grain, and vegetables,' but such portions are of dry and arid character, and, in order to make them productive, require large quantities of water for the purpose of irrigating them. In 1889 the United States constructed houses and buildings upon the reservation for the occupancy and residence of the officers in charge of it, and such officers depend entirely for their domestic, culinary, and irrigation purposes upon the water of the river. In the year 1889, and long prior to the acts of the defendants complained of, the United States, through its officers and agents at the reservation, appropriated and took from the river a flow of 1,000 miners' inches, and conducted it to the buildings and premises, used the same for domestic purposes and also for the irrigation of land adjacent to the buildings and premises, and by the use thereof raised crops of grain, grass, and vegetables. Afterwards, but long prior to the acts of the defendants complained of, to wit, on the 5th of July, 1898, the Indians residing on the reservation diverted from the river for the purpose of irrigation a flow of 10,000 miners' inches of water to and upon divers and extensive tracts of land, aggregating in amount about 30,000 acres, and raised upon said lands crops of grain, grass, and vegetables. And ever since 1889 and July, 1898, the United States and the Indians have diverted and used the waters of the river in the manner and for the purposes mentioned, and the United States 'has been enabled by means thereof to train, encourage, and accustom large numbers of Indians residing upon the said reserva- tion to habits of industry and to promote their civilization and improvement.' It is alleged with detail that all of the waters of the river are necessary for all those purposes and the purposes for which the reservation was created, and that in furthering and advancing the civilization and improvement of the Indians, and to encourage habits of industry and thrift among them, it is essential and necessary that all of the waters of the river flow down the channel uninterruptedly and undiminished in quantity and undeteriorated in quality.
It is alleged that, 'notwithstanding the riparian and other rights' of the United States and the Indians to the uninterrupted flow of the waters of the river, the defendants, in the year 1900, wrongfully entered upon the river and its tributaries above the points of the diversion of the waters of the river by the United States and the Indians, built large and substantial dams and reservoirs, and, by means of canals and ditches and water ways, have diverted the waters of the river from its channel, and have deprived the United States and the Indians of the use thereof. And this diversion of the water, it is alleged, has continued until the present time, to the irreparable injury of the United States, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
The allegations of the answer, so far as material to the present controversy, are as follows: That the lands of the Fort Belknap Reservation were a part of a much larger area in the state of Montana, which, by an act of Congress, approved April 15, 1874 [18 Stat. at L. 28, chap. 96], was set apart and reserved for the occupation of the Gros Ventre, piegan, Blood, Blackfeet, and River Crow Indians, but that the right of the Indians therein 'was the bare right of the use and occupation thereof at the will and sufferance of the government of the United States.' That the United States, for the purpose of opening for settlement a large portion of such area, entered into an agreement with the Indians composing said tribes, by which the Indians 'ceded, sold, transferred, and conveyed' to the United States all of the lands embraced in said area, except Fort Belknap Indian Reservation described in the bill. This agreement was ratified by an act of Congress of May 1, 1888 [25 Stat. at L. 113, chap. 213], and thereby the lands to which the Indians' title was thus extinguished became a part of the public domain of the United States and subject to disposal under the various land laws, 'and it was the purpose and intention of the government that the said land should be thus thrown open to settlement, to the end that the same might be settled upon, inhabited, reclaimed, and cultivated, and communities of civilized persons be established thereon.'
That the individual defendants and the stockholders of the Matheson Ditch Company and Cook's Irrigation Company were qualified to become settlers upon the public land and to acquire title thereto under the homestead and desert land laws of the United States. And that said corporations were organized and exist under the laws of Montana for the purpose of supplying to their said stockholders the water of Milk river and its tributaries, to be used by them in the irrigation of their lands.
That the defendant the Empire Cattle Company is a corporation under the laws of Montana, was legally entitled to purchase, and did purchase, from those who were qualified to acquire them under the desert and homestead land laws of the United States, lands on the Milk river and its tributaries, and is now the owner and holder thereof.
That the defendants, prior to the 5th day of July, 1898, and before any appropriation, diversion, or use of the waters of the river or its tributaries was made by the United States or the Indians on the Fort Belknap Reservation, except a pumping plant of the capacity of about 250 miners' inches, without having notice of any claim made by the United States or the Indians that there was any reservation made of the waters of the river or its tributaries for use on said reservation, and believing that all the waters on the lands open for settlement as aforesaid were subject to appropriation under the laws of the United States and the laws, decisions, rulings, and customs of the state of Montana, in like manner as water on other portions of the public domain, entered upon the public lands in the vicinity of the river, made entry thereof at the United States land office, and thereafter settled upon, improved, reclaimed, and cultivated the same and performed all things required to acquire a title under the homestead and desert land laws, made due proof thereof, and received patents conveying to them, respectively, the lands in fee simple.
That all of said lands are situated within the watershed of the river, are riparian upon the river and its tributaries, but are arid and must be irrigated by artificial means to make them inhabitable and capable of growing crops.
That for the purpose of reclaiming the lands, and acting under the laws of the United States and the laws of Montana, the defendants, respectively, posted upon the river and its tributaries, at the points of intended diversion, motices of appropriation, stating the means of diversion and place of use, and thereafter filed in the office of the clerk and recorder of the county wherein the lands were situated a copy of the notices, duly verified, and within forty days...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Washington
...S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979) ; Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 528, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832) ; Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 577, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908) ; U.S. v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905). Finally, treaties must be “viewed in h......
-
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt
...Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 78, 89, 39 S.Ct. 40, 42, 63 L.Ed. 138 (1918); Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576-77, 28 S.Ct. 207, 211-12, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). This rule is particularly applicable if the language of a treaty supports two inferences, one favoring......
-
Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...properly stated a breach of trust claim premised on the Nation's treaties with the United States and the Nation's federally reserved Winters rights, especially when considered along with the Federal Appellees' pervasive control over the Colorado River. We remand to the district court with i......
-
U.S. v. Adair
...with them an implied reservation of water rights. 1. Reservation of Water in the 1864 Treaty. In Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576-77, 28 S.Ct. 207, 211-12, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908), the Supreme Court held that the treaty creating the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation contained an implie......
-
CHAPTER 1 EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND AND RESOURCES LAW
...387 (1892). [109] Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896). [110] Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1902). [111] Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). [112] Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911). [113] United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459 (1915). [114] 133 U.S. at 48......
-
CHAPTER 6 LITIGATION WITH INDIANS
...Court, 420 U.S. 425, 427 n.2, 95 S.Ct. 1082, 1084 n.2 (1975). See also Cohen, Ch. 1, §D at 27. [4] 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894 (1982). [5] 207 U.S. 564, 28 S.Ct. 207 (1908). [6] 373 U.S. 546, 83 S.Ct. 1468 (1963). [7] 471 U.S. 845, 105 S.Ct. 2447 (1985). [8] 436 U.S. 49, 98 S.Ct. 1670 (1978......
-
Groundwater Exceptionalism: the Disconnect Between Law and Science
...the most controversial aspects of water law, especially in the arid West where federal lands predominate").172. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908); see also United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) (recognizing reserved tribal fishing rights based on express language of treat......
-
CHAPTER 7 INDIAN WATER RIGHTS: OLD PROMISES, NEW OPPORTUNITIES
...(1829). [11] 198 U.S. 371 (1905). See also United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 304 U.S. 111 (1938). [12] Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). [13] Id. For the historical background to and informed discussion of the Winters litigation, see Hundley, The "Winters" Decision an......
-
PL 106-382, S 624 – A bill to authorize construction of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System in the State of Montana, and for other purposes.
...based on a treaty, compact, executive order, agreement, Act of Congress, aboriginal title, the decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) (commonly known as the ``Winters Doctrine''), or other law; or (6) validate or invalidate any assertion of the existence, nonexistence, or......
-
PL 108-85, S 520 – A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District in the State of Idaho.
...of the Fort Hall Reservation to water based on a treaty, compact, executive order, agreement, the decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) (commonly known as the ``Winters Doctrine''), or (b) Conveyances.--Any conveyance under this Act shall not affect or abrogate any provi......
-
Chapter 672, AB 1390 – Groundwater: comprehensive adjudication
...to groundwater in a basin. (6) Providing for the conduct of a comprehensive adjudication consistent with Winters v. United States (1908) 207 U.S. 564, the McCarran Amendment (codified at 43 U.S.C. Sec. 666), and any other federal laws regarding the determination of federal or tribal water r......
-
PL 107-331, S 2017 – A bill to amend the Indian Financing Act of 1974 to improve the effectiveness of the Indian loan guarantee and insurance program.
...based on a treaty, compact, Executive Order, Agreements, Act of Congress, aboriginal title, the decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) (commonly known as the ``Winters Doctrine''), or other law.SEC. 913. CHIPPEWA CREE WATER SYSTEM OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT T......