WSP11470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . such purposes are enunerated in the legislation or the legislative history of the statutes authorizing the witJrlrawals. Further, no court has sanctioned such broad purposes for these reserves. But even assuming the validity of the Solicitor's opinion in this area, reserved rights exist only in the amount necessary to acccrnplish those purposes, and no Il'Ore. A blanket claim to the entire yield of these water sources is without rrerit. . (2) National Parks Service (a) National Parks The Solicitor claims reserved water rights for national park areas for a wide variety of uses for the purposes of (1) scenic, natural arrl historic conservation, (2) wildlife conservation, (3) sustained public enjoyment, arrl (4) national parks service personnel. 65/ The Solicitor bases his conclusions as to park purposes primarily onthe National Park Services Organic Act of 1916. 66/ Ho.vever, the Solicitor claims that the priority date for such claims is the pre-1916 date of each national park area's enabling legislation. 67/ The Suprene Court in the New Mexico case also cited the language of the National Parks Services Act in order to canpare its broader language with the relatively =ro.v purposes for which national forests were to be reserved. For this purpose the Court also referred to legislation establishing Yosemite National Park arrl an act passed in 1897 authorizing the establishment within individual national forests of fish and genre sanctuaries. 68/ Referring to this discussion by the Court, the Solicitor concludes that"the Court intimated in dictum that the early park legis- lation's expressed concern for the natural curiosities and biotic elements would allow the assertion of reserved water rights required to fulfill such purposes." 69/ That this is not a fair reading of the Co.lrt's discussion is rrade clear by a footnote accompanying the text of the Court's opinion. Footnote 19 reads as follONs: "In canparing the 1897 Organic Act with enabling legislation for national parks arrl particular national forests, arrl with the Act of March 10, 1934, we of course do not intimate any views as to what, if any, water Congress reserved urder the latter statutes." [ernphil.3is added.] 70/ The assertion in the Solicitor's opinion that the purposes set forth in the 1916 Organic Act relate back to pre-1916 national parks is also contrary to the Suprerre Court's Il'Ost recent decision concerning the reservation doctrine in the New Mexico case. Similar to the argunent advanced by the Solicitor, the government in the New Mexico case argued that the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 rrerely confinred the purposes for which national forests had always been administered so that reserved rights for recreational, aesthetic, and wildlife preservation uses were justified \,ith an 1897 priority date, the date of the enabling legislation. The SUprene Court rejected the notion of any retroactive effect of the Multiple Use-SUstained Yield Act. The Court concluded that Congress intended the Act to broaden the purposes for which national forests are to be administered. Thus, as the Court pointed out,' even assuming that the 1960 Act expanded the reserved water rights of the United States, such rights VoGuld be subordinate to any appropriation of water under state law dating to l:efore 1960. 71/ . . -10- 90.