The Glacier reporter. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1953-current, 1961-12-21


functions there has been confu-
sion and often injustice. With
some exceptions, the general
trend of State and local policy
has been 10 resist or refuse to
act. unless the Federal Govern
ment, through the Bureau or
otherwise, makes a monetary
contribution. Thus, under author
ity of the Johnson-O'Malley Act
of 1894 the Bureau has been max
ing payments TO the States for
the education OF Indians in pub
Lie schools. The theory under
which such payments are made
has shifted with the years, but
basically the payments make pos
ssbIe services which the commu-
nifty or the State says IL cannot
afford TO provide. One of the
stock arguments is that Indians
pay no taxes on their trust or
restricted lands. This argument
may have some validity in the
States whose principal financial
base is the tax on real property,
but il is heard with equal vigor
in States whose governmental IL
eenses and fees, all Of which are
paid by Indians. The passage OF
Public Laws BIS and 874, with
the subsequent amendment quail
flying Indian trust or restricted
lands as '.federaIly impacted
areas, has made possible. the
construction and operation Of
many public schools which would
otherwise not have been avail.
able to Indians.
The status Of Indians away
from the reservations is frequent
ly a cause of argument between
the States and local governments
on the one side and the Bureau on
the other. Indians may be living
away from the reservations, yet
not have qualified under State
laws or county and municipal or
dinances, for assistance of vari-
Gus kinds given 10 other citizens.
Such Indians may not have lost
their rights as tribal members.
They would be entitled TO Bureau
assistance If they returned TO
the reservation, but return may
not be desirable. The whole prob
lem of eligibility, whether for
medical care, education, general
assistance or relief, or any other
service, is a vexing one.
II should be Bureau policy to
work diligently and vigorously
with States and their subdiyi-
sions, to the end that Indians off
the reservations are treated as
are all other citizens. In some
areas this policy may require
long and complicated negotia-
lions. II may be that the Federal
Government, insofar as II is re-
sponsible for reservation condi-
tons which drive Indians away
from home, should he willing to
give some financial assistance
when the impact of a large In
dian colony creates distress in a
community. The Bureau should
not. however, give way in its
contention that IL the Indians
meet the requirements establish
ed for citizens generally, they
are legally entitled to receive
the benefits and rights of citizen
ship.
Grateful acknowledgement is
made to the Honorable William
A. Brophy, former Commissioner
Of Indian Affairs, who prepared
at the request Of the Task Force
a memorandum from which this
material Is drawn. Statements
made in this report, however, are
those of the Task Force which
assumes responsibility for them.
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS
Water rights under the laws
of seventeen Western States de
rive from the doctrine of 'bene'
ficiaI' use. In general. the prin-
ciples which underlie this doc
trine are that all the water in
the State belongs TO the people;
that II may be assigned by the
State from one user TO another;
and that the right TO water Is
not q vested right appurtenant
20 the land. but an sppropriative
right subject TO administrative
regulation.
A clear statement Of this basic
proposition is illustrated by Ar
ticle Is of the Constitution of
New Mexico which provides that
beneficial use shall be the basis,
the measure, and the limit of the
right 70 the use OF water" Either
the constitution or the statutes
of Arizona. Colorado. Idaho. Ne
yada. New Mexico. Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah. Washington, Wyo-
ming. and perhaps some other
States as well. provide that the
water in all rivers. streams and
other sources belongs TO or Is
owned by the public of the State.
Other States in which water
-s-Aa. go ~ irrnnnrtanca rnrng-