WSP09193 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2151 and the National Water Ccm:1ission both observed, the Supreme Court foretold that result in a 1955 decision.y '!he federal. reserved water riyhts doctrine has been described by i I. the Suprer.e Court as follCMS: '!his Court has lony held that when the Federal Goverllr.'el1t withdraws its lands fran the public danain arrl reserves it for a federal purpose, the Goverrunent, by implication, reserves appur- tenant water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose of the reser- vation. In doiny so the United States acquires a reserved water riyht in Wlappropriated water which vests on the date of the reservation and is superior to the riyhts of future appropriators. FEservation of water is ~re<l by the Cor.1lIerce Clause, Art. I, ~ 8, which pemits regulation ot naviyable streams, and the Property Clause, Art. IV, ~ 3, whiett perr.lits federal regulation of federal lands. '!he doctrine applies to Indian reservatiolls and other federal en- claves, enconpassiny water ri\jhts in navi- \jable and non-navigable streams.y FEserved water riyhts are r.lOst often created by iIr~,lication rather than by express reservation. 'lhe intent to reserve water "is inferred if the previously unap~ropriated water is necessary to accomplish the pur- poses for Which tile land reservation is created," because the courts have 7/ See Public Land Law Review Conrnission, One-Third of the Nation's Larxl (197(j'f"(hereafter "PLLRC Report") at 1421 National Water COImlission, Water Policies for the Future (1973) (hereafter "1-NiC Heport") at 4601 FPC v:-oregon, 349 U.S. 435 (1955) 1 ~ also United States v. Rio Grande Irriyation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 706 (1899)1 California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 662 (1978). y Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 12~, 138 (1976) (citations omitted). -15-