WSP11470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . '0246 . . Although the California case did not involve a claim by the United States to a reserved right, the case was cited by the Court in its New I-lexico decision, which was issued on the same day. In that case, the Suprene Court stated that where the United. States was not entitled to a reserved right to carry out the pr:imaJ:y purposes of a reservation, "Congress inten::led... that the United States would acquire water in the sarre manner as any other public or private appropriator." 99/ Considering both decisions, it is difficult to conceive of a clearer statenent by the Supreme Court to the effect that the state has been given exclusive pa.-;'er to allocate water frcrn its streams, except where the United States invokes the reservation doctrine or the navigation servitude. The Solicitor also places reliance on court decisions not involving a federal water rights claim. United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 100/ is basically a choice of law case. The United States brought a title action to land parcels that it acquired for a wildlife refuge in IDuisiana. The parcels, which were acquired in 1937 an:l. 1939 reserved to the grantor the right to extract minerals for 10 years. The Court held that the United States had acquired mineral rights in spite of a 1940 IDusisiana statute that had provided mineral rights reserved by the grantor in conveyances to the United States are "inprescriptable." 101/ The Court noted that the united States is governed generally in its ordinary proprietary relations by state law, but it said that this case bore heavily upon a federal regulatory program, and the choice of law here was a task for federal courts. The Court declined to apply the IDuisiana Statute because it deprived the United States of an interest for which it had specifically bargained. The Court specifically declined to overturn the general rule that state property law should govern federal lan:l. acquisitions. It is difficult to see how the Little Lake Misere case can be general authority for a non-reserved water right. The case recognized that state law generally applies to property acquisition. Moreover, the case appears to be an unusual exception to the general rule that there is no federal =n law. The Solicitor also cites the decision of a federal district court in Nevada ex. rel. Shamberger v. United States. 102/ The court held in that case that the federal government could use underground waters located under a naval depot without obtaining a pennit fran the state. The court reasoned that since the United States possessed both OI,mership an:l. control of the land within the scope of its delegated functions under the war pc:YWer, it enjoyed a superior position under the supr6llacy clause an:l. state laws need not ,be observed. It must first be noted that the court was not dealing with federal claims to water rights as against private users. Secondly, the Ninth Circuit on appeal directed that the case be dismissed because the district court was without jurisdiction. 103/ Shamberger thus has little or no value as a precedent in support of the Solicitor's as- sertion of non-reserved water rights. -15- 90.