|
<br />0046
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />- ~ -
<br />
<br />different laws and would frequently conflict."2~1 Despite the practical impor-
<br />tance of local control of water, Congress, under the Supremacy Clause2!1
<br />has the ultimate power to preempt state laws regarding management and disposi-
<br />tion of the publi.c lands and tne resources thereon, including water.E) As;
<br />a result, it is unlikely that state law could preclude reasonable water use
<br />by a federal agency if Congress specifies a particular federal usabe.26/ While
<br />the Constitution may grant Congress plenary power in an area, Congress may
<br />generally defer to state control thereby delegating that aut hority to the
<br />states.~/ The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that Congress has dele-
<br />gated broad power to the states in regulating water resources on the public
<br />lands.3U/ Accordingly, the ultimate issue is not the existence of authority
<br />but the exercise or delegation of that authority.
<br />
<br />The United Sta tes' control over unappropria ted non-navigable water located
<br />upon the public domain arises from retention of federal ,roperty, including
<br />the streaCls and lakes thereon at the time of statehood.31 When the various
<br />western states were admitted to the Union, the title to the beds and waters of
<br />the navigable streams and lakes passed to the new states, with the United
<br />States retaining title to the non-navigable waters on the public dOlllain.1~-'
<br />
<br />b/ California v. United States, supra at &&7-&6; See also Trelease, Federal
<br />State R.elations in Water l.aw, (Sept. 7, 1971) (l.egaCStudy No. ~ prepared for
<br />the Nation.al Water Commission); Public Land Law keview COlDIDission, One Third
<br />of the Nation's l.and, 144 et seq. (1970); Report of the Task Force on Non-
<br />Indian Federal Water R.ights-Task Force 5(b), President's Water Policy Implemen-
<br />tation, 2U (198U).
<br />
<br />2bl U.S. Const., Art VI, Sec. 2.
<br />
<br />ILl See,~, Kleppe v. New Mexico, 4210 U.S. ~29 (197&); see alao, Discus-
<br />sion at 86 1.0. 5b2-~&4 and cases cited therein. But see, di~s~regarding
<br />states "exclusive sovereignty over the unappropri~d-;;ters in their streams"
<br />in California v. United States, 438 U.S. &4~, b~4-~~ (1978).
<br />
<br />281 Cappaert v. United States, 42& U.S. 128 (197&); United States v. New
<br />Mexico, 438 U.S. &910 (1976); See~, 31 Stan. L. Rev. 88~ (1979) lupra, ftnt.
<br />23.
<br />
<br />29( first Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop v. fPC, 328 U.S. 1~2 (194&); United States v.
<br />iro Grande Vim & Irr. Co., 174 U.S. &90, 703 (1899).
<br />
<br />30/ California v. United Ststes, 438 U.S. &45, &~4 (1978); United States v.
<br />New Mexico, 438 U.S. &910, 702 (1978).
<br />
<br />311 80 I.D. st ~ges 5&2-574 and cases cited therein. See alao, Op. M-339&9
<br />(Nov. 7, 1950), "Compliance by the Department with State LBWs-coDcerning Watar
<br />Rights. "
<br />
<br />32/ See, Pollard's Lesaee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 (1845); United Statea v.
<br />california, 332 U.s. 19, 29-30, 38 (1947); Arhona v. California, 373 U.S.
<br />546, 579 (1903); Clark, Water and Water Rights, Vol. 2, pp. 51-52.
<br />
|