Winters US Case Brief 
Winters v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States, 1908.
Facts
The suit was brought by the U.S. 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. The defendant had built substantial dams and reservoirs, and diverted the waters from its channel, which had deprived downstream use. Alleged by the appellant, it was supposed to be the irreparable injury of the U.S. for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The defendant claimed that they had their diversions without having notice of any claim made by the United States and had spent over 100,000 dollars on the construction.
Issues
1. Had the water right and all the other beneficial use been ceded with the uncivilized and arid land?
2. Is there any conflict between reservation of the waters and the admission of Montana?
3. Would the doctrine of implying a reservation of water apply to federal land granted to states?
Decision
Request of restraining upstream habitants from constructing dams or reservoirs and diverting the flow by U.S. was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Reason
1. In the absence of specific authority from Congress, a state cannot, by its legislation, destroy the right of the U.S..
2. It is limited by the superior power of the general government to secure the uninterrupted navigability of all navigable streams within the limits of the U.S..
3. Non-Indian people gave up the water rights of when they ceded the land.
4. Even if there was a reservation of the waters of Milk River by the agreement, the reservation was repealed by the admission of Montana into the Union.
5. The power of the government to reserve the waters and exempt them from appropriation under the state laws can not denied.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1908.
Facts
The suit was brought by the U.S. 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. The defendant had built substantial dams and reservoirs, and diverted the waters from its channel, which had deprived downstream use. Alleged by the appellant, it was supposed to be the irreparable injury of the U.S. for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The defendant claimed that they had their diversions without having notice of any claim made by the United States and had spent over 100,000 dollars on the construction.
Issues
1. Had the water right and all the other beneficial use been ceded with the uncivilized and arid land?
2. Is there any conflict between reservation of the waters and the admission of Montana?
3. Would the doctrine of implying a reservation of water apply to federal land granted to states?
Decision
Request of restraining upstream habitants from constructing dams or reservoirs and diverting the flow by U.S. was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Reason
1. In the absence of specific authority from Congress, a state cannot, by its legislation, destroy the right of the U.S..
2. It is limited by the superior power of the general government to secure the uninterrupted navigability of all navigable streams within the limits of the U.S..
3. Non-Indian people gave up the water rights of when they ceded the land.
4. Even if there was a reservation of the waters of Milk River by the agreement, the reservation was repealed by the admission of Montana into the Union.
5. The power of the government to reserve the waters and exempt them from appropriation under the state laws can not denied.