This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1975. As you are You are also probably aware that on about June 16, Mr. Randy Hansen We have no objection to Mr. Veeder's preparing a statement and submitting it for the Committee, providing Mr. Veeder follows Departmental procedures concerning prepared statements, such as processing them through the Legislative Counsel's Office. Until Mr. Veeder's statement is presented to the Legislative Counsel, we must, of course, reserve comment relative to its status as an official Departmental position. In addition to this, and because you have specifically requested that Mr. Veeder comment on the "law in regard to the subject matter of the hearing", you should be aware that Mr. Veeder is not employed in a legal capacity in the Department of the Interior, even though he is an attorney. If you are desirous of having a Departmental witness address CONSERVE AMERICA'S ENERGY Save Energy and You Serve America! 2. the legal issues which come before the Committee, we will be pleased to provide a witness from the Division of Indian Affairs in the Solicitor's Office, where the primary responsibility for addressing and resolving legal issues vests. In keeping with established policy covering all employees, the Department has asked Mr. Veeder to comport with the same schedule and procedures for the submission of his statement that we have imposed on Assistant Secretary Horton, that is, that the statement be submitted to the Legislative Counsel in such time as to allow its submission to the Committee no later than July 16, 1975. Sincerely yours, Mouis Thompson Commissioner of Indian Affairs United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Ja í 8 1975 Dear Senator Abourezk: You have requested that Mr. William Veeder submit a statement to the Committee, which would delineate his personal views on the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Army and Department of the Interior on water use for energy development utilizing reservoirs of Corps of Engineers on the Missouri River. Mr. Veeder's statement is enclosed. Please note that the views expressed are those of Mr. Veeder personally and should not be considered as the official position of the Department of the Interior. Sincerely yours, Honorable James Abourezk Enclosure Secretary of the Interior ENERGY, RESEARCH AND WATER RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE CONFISCATION INDIAN WINTERS RIGHTS IN THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN William H. Veeder Hearing, July 18, 1975 CONFISCATION INDIAN WINTERS RIGHTS 1/ IN THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER BASIN William H. Veeder Senator James Abourezk, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, by his letter dated June 30, 1975, requested Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Morris Thompson to have prepared a statement of law and facts as I perceive them in regard to Indian rights to the use of water in the Upper Missouri River Basin. Special reference was requested by the Senator to those Indian rights in the sub-basin of the Yellowstone River. In that sub-basin the industrial water-marketing program of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, has since 1967 become controversial. The vast coal fields in that area which Exxon, Shell, Gulf Oil and other international energy cartels are desirous of exploiting require water for that purpose and those needs far exceed the supply in some of the tributaries. Directly and immédiately involved are the Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water of the Wind River Indians in Wyoming and the Crow and Northern Cheyennes in Montana. 1/ Definition of Indian Winters Rights in the Upper Missouri River Basin: Attached are copies of two law review articles which analyze in detail the nature and extent of Indian Winters Doctrine Rights to the use of water in the Upper Missouri River Basin. It was in that basin the Winters Doctrine was first enunciated and has been reiterated and reaffirmed. "Indian Water Rights In The Upper Missouri River Basin", 48 North Dakota Law Review, pp. 617 et seq. (1972) and "Indian Prior And Paramount Rights v. State Rights", 51 North Dakota Law Review, pp. 108 et seq. (1974). In summary: The cradle of the body of jurisprudence recognizing the Indian Winters prior and paramount rights to the use of water is the Upper Missouri River Basin. In 1908 the Supreme Court declared |