WSP08485 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'l,.0048 . . - 7 - "publici juris" and subject ro tne "?lenary control" of the Io"estern States.~/ ThEse Stdtutes. l",'hicn are still in efiect, dE2.:l:onstrate the early con6ressional defcr~nce to 6tdtc water law. In 1~U2, Congr~s5 abain mandatE:d tnat federal agencies comply with state water la:Js under Section" of the ReclaJ;lanon Act of 19u2.4U/ Section II direct6 the Secretary of the Interior to abide by 6tate law in acquiring unap;>ropriated Water for recla~ation project6 in the various SLate6. !nis deference to &tate law is particularly noteworthy because the Reclamation Act waS "a massiv~ pro- gram to construct and operate dams, reservoirs and canals for the rcclacation of the arid lands in 17 western states. ..41/ Yet de6pite the provision for substantial 'federal action and federal ex;>en6e to develop water resources witnin thl:: state, Congril::ss nevertheless maint.ained its commitment tlJ allow 6tate control of ~ater rights. Congress has continuously encouraged, through federal legislation, thE: develop- ment of state control of water within 6tate boundaries. The four 6tatutes cited above arE: cerely examples of tne more important early legislation. Yet, there are many utner statutes which 6imilarly express or implicitly pennit the 6tateS to control water appurtenant to federally-owned lands. As the Supreme Court has noted recentl!, Congress has continued its deference to state law in at least 37 6tatotos.42 Congressional deference to 6tate6 in ~ater, law is well-documented by tne above- referenced Court decisions. Only in very limited instances has Congress main- tained it. power and not deferred to state law. For example, in United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co.,~/ where the Supreme Court noted that the right of the United States to restrict a state appropriation sY6tem i6 limited. The United States sought to enjoin an irrigation companY'6 appropriation of water under state law because a pennit had not been acquired from the Secretary of War to make a diversion from the navigable Rio Grande River. Tne Supreme Court held that a state in establishing its own system of water law could not, without congressional consent, "destroy the right of the United States, as the owner of lands borderin,; on a 6tream to the continued flow of its waters; so 39/ California Ore,!\on Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U.S. 142, 163-164 (1935). 40/ 43 U.S.C. i 3 7L. 3~3 (197U). ~/ California v. United States, supra at 650. 42/ United States v. !;ew Hexico. supra at 70L, nt. 5. 43/ 174 U.S. 69u (1899).