WSP11470 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 0240 One substantial exception fran federal deference to state water laws came with the Supreme Court's developrrent of the reservation doctrine. . The real teginning of the doctrine came in the case of Winters v. United States 15/ in which the Supreme Court held that when Congress created an Indian reservation, an unspecified quantity of water, without which the land wDuld l::.€ valueless, had l::.€en impliedly set aside for the Indian's use and that this reserved right was superior to the rights of subsequent appropriators who had obtained water rights wrler the appli- cable state la,,'s, even though the Irrlians had not made a diversion for beneficial use. The Winters Doctrine, as it became known and accepted, was uni- versally thought of as a special rule of Indian law 16/, for there were special circt.nT\Stances in the case of an Indian reservation that justified ,an inl:>lication of intent to reserve water for the Indians that did not exist in the context of other federal establishments. Ho.vever, in the lardmark case of Arizona v. California 17/ in 1963, the Court agreed with the Master's conclusion that the principle underlying the reservation of water rights for Indians applies equally to other federal establishments. As a result, the Court upheld reserved rights not only for Indian reservations, but for national forests, national recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. 18/ The effect of reservation doctrine, with respect to appropriations under state lal., has been described as follows: . "An appropriator, canplying with state law cannot obtain title to it and his right applies only to surplus vTclter, if any, remaining after the federal right is satisfied. The reserved water so withheld, is the property of the United States, and the governrrent exercising its proprietary powers and rights can put it to use without C011pliance with state law. The block of water that will ultimately l::.€ needed on the reserved ,lands may l::.€ used in the neantime ~ an appropriator vlho canplies with the state laws, but if that water is later put to use by the goverrurent, it takes no property fran the terrp:>rary user and owes him no canpensation." 19/ . Thus, the doctrine poses the threat that new federal uses will be given turn-of-the-century priorities that can take water fran =ently valuable uses established pursuant to state law without paying any compensation. 20/ The concern with which the western states view this threat is obvious ~ the fact that as the result of federal reservations and withdrawals fran those lands open to public settlerrent, as of June 30, 1963, approximately 40% of the total acreage within those states (with the exception of North and South Dakota) included in the Desert Lard Act is under the responsibility of federal agencies: a total of over 360 million acres in the eleven contiguous western states. 21/ Approximately 61% of the total surface water runoff is derived fran federally reserved lanis. 22/ It should be thus apparent that the uncertainties generated ~t:he doctrine with respect to state-granted water rights have adversely affected water resources planning and developrrent. As the tlational Water CCltIInission concluded in its report of 1973: -3- 90.