WSP08485 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. 0050 . - 9 - . cally declined to address the issue of atate control of water which had not been appropriated.5l! That is, could Arhona exert control over all non- appropriated Water appurtenant to federal lands or did some inchoate federal right (i.e., non-reserved. rights) limit Arizona's power in th1s rellard? Since the issue was specifically not addressed by the Court, Arizona v. California provides no judicial basis for the exercise of federal "non-reserved" water rightS. While never rev iewing the issue of federal non-reserved rights, the Courts have continued to maintain a atrict requirement for application of the reserved rights doctrine and clearly regard it as an exception, and not the rule, to a general deference to state law regarding appropriation and use of water.52! Simply stated, there is neither a congressional nor judicial basis for the exercise of a federdl non-reserved water right. In my opinion, this issue of "non-reserved" federal water rights was defini- Uvely and directly addressed on July 3, 19711, by the Supreme Court in two separate opinions regardin6 the water rights of the United States. In United States v. New liexico,53/ and California v. United States,54/ the Court once again acknowledged the congressional deference to state water law concluding that "this congressionally mandated division between federal and state author- ity worked smoothly."~! In California v. United States, the United States. sought declaratory relief to the effect that it could impound unappropriated water for reclamation purposes without regard for state substantive law. In connection with the 1~02 Reclama- tion Act, the United States alleged that while it was required under , 8 of the Reclamation Act of I~Ol to apply to the state for water rights permits for the federal proJect, the state could not substantially condition those permits. Tile United States alleged that to tile extent there was unappropriated water in a source, the state must Ilrant the United States the unconditional right to use that water. Tile Court, however, rejected this claim and held that tile state may impose any condition on the control, appropriation, use, or distri- bution of water in a federal reclamation project that is not inconsistent with a congreaaional directive respecting the project.5b/ Tile Court made a cOllpre- Sl/ Id. at Sb7-S7S. Z!/ Cappaert v. United States, supra; In tbe Katter of tbe United States of America, Water Divisions 4, S, b, Civil Nos. W-42S, etc., (Colo. D.C., Karch b. 1~7ij), appeal pending (Nos. 79-SA~9 and lOa, Colo. Sup. Ct.). W 438 u.s. b9b (1978). ~/ 438 u.s. 645' ((19711). SS/ .!!!,. at b70. ~/ 438 U. S. at b74. b711.