The Indian Water Rights issues are issues of tribal sovereignty. The Indian reserved water rights doctrine, also known as Winters doctrine, was established through the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Winters v. United States (1908). In the decision, the Court decided that sufficient water should be implicitly reserved to fulfill the purpose of establishment of Indian reservations. Indian reserved water rights possess seniority over state water uses and retain validity regardless of whether tribes have put the water to beneficial use or not.

Winters doctrine’s significance lies in its respect for treaty rights of native nations which had been disgraced by previous court cases. The Marshall trilogy, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1820s and 30s, denied the aboriginal land rights of native nations and justified federal power over tribal sovereignty; Native nations were defined as domestic dependent nations and put under federal laws. In the cases of United States v. Kagama, (1886) and Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), the Supreme Court declared that the U.S. Congress possesses “plenary power,” and its authority could abrogate United States’ treaty obligations promised to native nations.

The Winters decision left a window for tribes to exercise their sovereign power. However, for years, the doctrine had not brought the promised water to reservations. Federal assistance needed to assert tribes’ water rights had not been provided. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs had neglected irrigation projects in reservations, the Bureau of Reclamation offered generous funds to water resource developments in the West, exploiting native water.

The Winters doctrine was long neglected and resurrected by Arizona v. California (1963) which set PIA standards to calculate the amount of water promised to tribes. In the 1970s, Montana tribes fought a series of court cases against the state’s attempt to apply state water laws to the tribes’ reserved water. To reclaim their water rights, tribes had to deal with the McCarran Amendment (1952), the purpose of which was to settle water disputes between Western states and the United States. The amendment waives federal sovereign immunity in general stream adjudications in state courts, placing tribes’ water rights under state jurisdiction.

The series of rulings, such as U.S. v. Dist. Court for Eagle County (1971), Colo. River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S. (1976), and Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (1983), had made the amendment applicable to Indian reserved water rights and made them vulnerable to state water laws. Arguing against this odd set by the McCarran Amendment, native tribes redefined “trust relationship” by which federal government had taken advantage of Winters doctrine for its own benefit. Eventually, the tribes made their way into water negotiation with states, beginning to finalize tribe-state water rights compacts in the 1980s.

Defending tribal sovereignty in contemporary resource war, native nations not only reclaimed long-forgotten Indian reserved water rights, but also established equal standing required to achieve water agreements in three-way relationship of tribe-state-federal government.