WSP08485 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 0052 . . '. - 11 - In r~view1n~ the ~nlted Stat~s' use and control of water before creation of the res€::rved rights, tru:: Court. r.JLed thar prior t.o the: cI-=:ation of the national forest reservatio~sJ Congress was of the opinion that: th~ States had exclusive control of tile distribution of ~at~r on public lands and reservations.~! The Court implies throughout the New Mexico opinion that the United States, without cr~aung a reservation and thus impliedly reserving the water, had no control or mea"s of preventin6 the public (or private ap;>ropriators) from appropriating all the waters in the National Forests pursuant to state laws. For exa"'ple, the Court states that befote the Forest Service Organic Act was passed the public had free rei1n to go llpon the public domain and llse water reSOlltCes withollt t~striction.~j In other wotds, WithOllt the formal reserva- tion of the land from the general public domain, the water resources upon the public domain cOllld not be controlled by the United States without fllrth~t action by Congress ",odifying, amending, Ot repealing the 1806, 1870, and IM77 Acts that gave tne states the express right to control the dis;>osition of water resources thereon. The New Mexico COllrt conclllded that unless Congress ex;>tessly indicated to the contrary, "federal entities must abide by state water law.-~! and "where watet is only valuable for a secondary use [on a federal reserv"tion] . . . Con tess intended that the united States would ac uire water in the same manner as any other public or private approptiatot." (emphasis added)__ A clearer statement of the law could not be made. Certainly New Mexico, sllpra, and California, supra, reaffirm that congressional deference to state control over water arises from the 1866, 1870, and 1877 Acts, as well as the 1902 Reclamation Act and nwnerous other public land use statutes enacted over the years. ob! The unavoidable conclusion to be reacned from these cases is that Congress gave the states broad power to provide for the administration of water rights which would only be limited where necessary to accomplish tbe otiginal purpose of a congressionally mandated reservation or to protect tne navigation servitude. As a result of this implicit grant of power, the preswnption is that state law will control all non-reserved claims unless Congress provides otnetwise. If Congress vishes to abandon its histori- cal practice of deference it must explicitly exercise its power. Wbile the Congress has retained the right to amend theae laws and reassert legislative control over a portion or all of the remaining unappropriated water in a 62/ U.S. v. New ~Iexico, supra, at 710, nt. 24. ~/ 438 U.S. at 705-706. 64/ ~. page 7Ul. ~! Id. ~! 438 U.s. at 7UL, nt. 5. ""::."