WSP11470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0244 . . . The same rationale is applicable to the Solicitor's argwrent. The 1916 National Parks Service Act is a general provision establishing a new agency with duties that would inclu:J.e the operation of national parks, national rron\.lI1'j2nts, ani national historic areas, each having a distinct public purpose warranting protection. The language cited was rrerely a sunmary of the separate purposes. But even assuming the 1916 National Parks Service Act expanied the reserved water rights of the United. states, such rights must b2 considered subordinate to any appro- priation of, water urrler state law prior to 1916. 72/. (b) National Monurrents The National Parks Service Organic Act of 1916 also carmot have a retroactive effect, as the Solicitor suggests, so as to allow reserved rights to b2 asserted for the purposes enunciated in the Act, but with pre-1916 priority dates. The legislation actually authorizing the ,withdrawal of public lanus for national rronurnents, the Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities Act of 1906, 73/ specifically refers to withdrawals of public land for "historic"- and "scientific" purposes, "the limits of "hich in all cases shall b2 confined to the smallest areas compatible with the proper care and ffi3l1agerrent of the objects to be protected." 74/ There is no evidence in the language of the Act to indicate that Congress intended the national rronurrent lands to serve the much broader purposes nOl, asserted by the Solicitor. But again, even if the 1916 National Park Service Act is considered to have broadened the reserved rights of the United States for national rronuments, the respective priority dates cannot be prior to 1916. . II. NCN-RESER\IED WATER RIGID'S Most egregious fran the viewpoint of the states is the Solicitor's assertion of a neIV basis for federal water rights. The Solicitor con- cludes that, "Since the federal govemrent has never granted aIVay its right to make use of unappropriated waters on federal lands,... the United States has retained its fCMer to vest in itself water rights in unappropriated water and it rray exercise such fCMer independent of substantive state law." 75/ ' Such water rights are available to fulfill authorized congressional purposes on the public demain, reserved and acquired lands, according to the Solicitor. Such uses rray be consurrptive or non-consurrptive uses such as for "fish and wildlife, scenic values, and areas of critical environmental concern." 76/ The priority date is the date of initial use, ani the quantity of the right is detennined by the requirerrents necessary to carry out "congressionally authorized ffi3J1agenent objectives on federal lands." 77/ The Solicitor admits that the Suprerre Court has never sanctioned such rights by the federal governrrent, but rather refers to "inconsistent dictum" on this subject. 78/ The Solicitor thus derronstrates little respect for the rrost recent decision by the Suprerre Court concerning the reservation d=trine, United States v. New Mexico. 79/ After noting traditional congressional deference to state water law, the Court found that where water is necessary to fulfill the very purposes for which a federal reservation . -11':: 90.