Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138423
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:20:11+00:00

Document:
41 priation under state laws, citing the Rio Grande case.161 It should be noted, however, that the reservation there involved, although made after passage of the Acts of 1866,1870, and 1877, was effected while Montana was a territory, and that it was the result of an agreement between the United States and certain Indians, ratified by act of Congress.162 Such an exempting of waters from appropriation under state laws has been held by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to apply with respect to reservations established upon territorial lands by administrative action, as well as by a treaty.163 We should also note here certain comments by the Supreme Court in disposing of interstate litigation involving the Colo- rado River. In its 1935 opinion in Arizona v. California, the Court said:164 The Colorado River is a navigable stream of the United States. The privilege of the states through which it flows and their inhabitants to appropriate and use the water is subject to the paramount power of the United States to control it for the purpose of navigation. The Court had similarly held, in its 1931 decision in Arizona v. California, that in lawfully exercising its commerce authority over waters, the United States need not conform to regulation by the states under their police power.165 And it seems imma- terial that the federal power there involved was that over com- merce, instead of some other delegated power. For it is estab- lished that:166 The federal government is one of delegated powers, and from that it necessarily follows that any constitutional exercise of its delegated powers is governmental. Intervening in a recent suit by Nebraska against Wyoming, the United States contended that the statutes of 1866, 1870, M Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 577 (1908). 182 See infra, pp. 56-57, 249-250. 1<B United States v. Walker River Irr. Dist, 104 F. 2d 334, 335-338 (C. A. 9,1939) ; United States v. Mclntire, 101 F. 2d 650, 653-654 (C. A. 9,1939). 1M298 U. S. 558, 569 (1936). 166 283 U. S. 423, 451 (1931). 1M Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Co., 314 U. S. 95,102 (1941).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.