WSP11470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 0247 The Solicitor's opinion also claims that the existence of non- reserved federal water rights is "unanimously recognized by canrrentators and others." 112/ However, the Solicitor misconstrues the staterrents which he cites in support of his conclusion. It carmot be denied that the United States has ample constitutional power to acquire water it needs to carry out a program authorized pursuant to its consitutional responsibilities. No state law could block or limit the use of water by an agency if a constitutionally enacted statute gave that agency the power to acquire water without reference to state law for a federal function on any federal land in any state. 113/ This is the thrust of the statEments cited by the Solicitor. However,the fact that consti- tutional power exists does not rrean that constitutional power has been exercised. As has been previously pointed out, the Supreme Court in two recent landmark decisions stated clearly that Congress has deferred to the states the allocation of waters fran state streams, except in the case of reserved rights and as necessary to improve and protect navigation. The deference to state jurisdiction over water allocation does not I1Ean federal agencies are p:JWerless to acquire water to carry out federal pro:Jrarns. Congress, in mny instances, has granted federal agencies the authority to acquire water rights pursuant to state laws to carry out federal programs on federal lands. 114/ As the Solicitor points out, the claims for appropriations which he asserts would be "recognized under the water law of llDst of the western states, and therefore no conflict with state systems should generally exist." 115/ Furtherrrore, as the Solicitor himself concedes, the federal government has the power to acquire water rights through purchase, exchange, donation, and con- demnation. 116/ No reliance on the Solicitor's theory of the existence of non-reserved water rights is necessary. . . ~17- 90.