Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2154 <br /> <br />resist adjudication of federal reserved rights in federal court, finaing <br />the adjudications of interrelated water rights in two separate forums im- <br />practical and especially costly to holders of water rights under state law <br />which predate federal reservations. 'lhe states also believe the United States <br />has adequate Judicial rer.'edies if it is in fact unfairly treated in the <br />state systems. Related to all this is the resentment scmetimes expressed <br />at the arrount of federal land within a state's borders. <br />Again at the risk of oversimplifying, the federal perspective on these <br />issues sprinys mainly fran the following considerations: '!here is a national <br />interest in manayerrent of federal lands which Cal'lIPt be limited by state <br />lines. Congress has the authority to establish the l'uq.oses for and proceduloes <br />oy which this land should be managed pursuant to the constitutional provisiOns <br />which give CoIl<;lress plenary parer over federallY-cMled property, and which <br />rnalXiate federal supremacy where federal and state interests conflict. 'lhese <br />purposes can be as aiverse as protecting fish am wildlife and their habitat, <br />protecting lands through watershed protection, producing food and fiber for <br />the Nation's needs, meeting national eneryy goals fran federallY-Q<llled resources <br />on the public lands, providiny for the growing national demand for outdoor <br />recreation, and preserving ecosystems in their natural colilition. EVen apart <br />fram the particular features of a single state's laws, it is more difficult <br />for the federal government to deal with a shifting IOClsaic of state laws <br />rather than relying on federal law to secure water rights. lIbreover, caIi>lete <br />reliance on 5Oll'e existing state laws would not allow the federal agencies <br />to discharye their conglessionally-1llal1dated management resOJOnsibilities. tbr <br /> <br />-21- <br />