Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 37

16 

ARIZONA v. NAVAJO NATION 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

water.  Ibid.  A contrary reading, the Court said, would “im-
pair or defeat” the parties’ agreement.  Id., at 577. 

While  Winters  involved  a  claim  brought  by  the  United 
States, the federal government asserted “the rights of the
Indians” themselves.  Id., at 576.  This Court’s subsequent
cases have confirmed as much.  In United States v. Powers, 
305 U. S. 527 (1939), for instance, this Court cited Winters 
as authority for its holding that a different treaty impliedly
“reserved” waters “for the equal benefit of tribal members.” 
Id., at 532 (emphasis added).  So when the reservation was 
dissolved and the land allotted, “the right to use some por-
tion of tribal waters essential for cultivation passed to the 
owners”  of  the  individual  plots  of  land.  Ibid.  (emphasis
added).  Later, in Arizona I, this Court described Winters as 
standing  for  the  principle  that  “the  Government,  when  it
create[s  an]  Indian  Reservation,  intend[s]  to  deal  fairly
with the Indians by reserving for them the waters without 
which their lands would have been useless.”  373 U. S., at 
600 (emphasis added).  Congress would not “creat[e] an In-
dian Reservation without intending to reserve waters nec-
essary to make the reservation livable.”  Id., at 559. 

Sometimes  the  United  States  may  hold  a  Tribe’s  water 
rights in trust.  When it does, this Court has recognized, the 
United States must manage those water rights “[a]s a fidu-
ciary,” Arizona v. California, 460 U. S. 605, 626–627 (1983) 
(Arizona II ), one held to “the most exacting fiduciary stand-
ards,” Seminole Nation, 316 U. S., at 297.  This is no special 
rule.  “[F]iduciary  duties  characteristically  attach  to  deci-
sions” that involve “managing [the] assets and distributing 
[the]  property”  of  others.  Pegram  v.  Herdrich,  530  U. S. 
211, 231 (2000).  It follows, then, that a Tribe may bring an 
action in equity against the United States for “fail[ing] to
provide an accurate accounting of ” the water rights it holds
on a Tribe’s behalf.  United States v. Tohono O’odham Na-
tion, 563 U. S. 307, 318 (2011).  After all, it is black-letter 
law that a plaintiff may seek an accounting “whenever the