Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />0045 <br /> <br />- 4 - <br /> <br />5. 1:< tl1~ area or 'War.er rights. FLPHA mandates th~ maintenance of <br />the 6:a~'J.S quo a7'.~E= in thc= l!:::lationship b~t\Jeen t.he states and the <br />United States. Tne status ~ is a recognition of existing laws and <br />practlc~sJ and rOllS allows tor (a) tn~ continued apjJropriar1on of <br />unapPf(lpriated r.c.o-"avigable waters on the public dO;'Jain by private <br />persons pursuant to state law, (b) the right of the United States to <br />use water for conbressionally-rl2:co~n1%ed and mandated purposes set <br />forth in le6islation provldi06 for the management of the public <br />docai". and (c) application by the United States to secute water <br />rights pursuant to state substantive and procedural law for these <br />purposes.Ie./ <br /> <br />b. !ieithet FLPMrt nor tne Taylor Grazing Act give the 81..'1 an indepen- <br />dent statutory basis for water uses which are inconsistent with the <br />substantive and procedural requirements of state law.l1l <br /> <br />IV. THE I~TE~KLLATIO~SHIP OF FEDEr~ &~D STATE CO~TROL OF WATE~ RIGHTS <br /> <br />In revie"ing rne interrdationship of federal and state law governing <br />water ri~hts, the United States Constitution ecpo~ers Congress under the <br />Property~( and Co~erce Clauses~ll to control the disposition and use of water <br />appurtenant to lands owned by the United States. Tnat power extends to water <br />on, under, over and appurtenant to federally-owned lands in the states.~1 <br />The po"er of the United States to exert control over sucn water, however, does <br />not preclude the po<<er of tne individual states to, at a minimum, proculbate and <br />exercise non-conf lic ting s tate regula tion.QI Indeed, the states, as Congress <br />clearly recognizea in enacting the McCarran Amenctment,241 have a strong <br />interest to regulate the water within their boundaries, including water appur- <br />tenant to federal lands. As the ~upre:le Court has noted "if the appropriation <br />and USe were not under the provisions of State law the utmost confusion would <br />prevail. . . . l!ifferent warer rights in the same state would be governed by <br /> <br />~I ~b 1.D. at 614-b15. <br /> <br />~I Supplemental Opinion. <br /> <br /> <br />E!..I U.S. Const., Art IV, Sec. 3. <br /> <br /> <br />ll/ U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8. <br /> <br /> <br />22 ~,United States v. Grand River Uam Authority, 365 U.S. 229, 235 (1960). <br /> <br />23/ United States v. New Mexico, 43~ U.S. 697, <br />federal Acquisition of ~on-~e~erved Water Rights <br />Rev. ~85 (197Y). <br /> <br />702 (1978); ~~, note, <br />after New Mexico, :n Stan. L. <br /> <br />24/ 43 U.S.C. i b~b; ~, t;nited ~tates v. E.aj!le County, 401 U.S. 5w (1971); <br />COlorado River ~ater Conservation Uistrict v. Uni~ed S~ate~, 424 U.S. 8UO, 017- <br />621 (H7b). <br /> <br />..~~~ <br />