Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />00257Q <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />This bill has the s"pport of the Administration, and to <br />that extent the federal government attitude shifts toward a <br />middle ground. <br />Thus, if we can secure the passage of the reserved lands <br />bill, and I think we can, if our efforts are u.~remitting, we <br />really have limited the prOblem to the ownership of unappro- <br />priated T'iater on or arising upon federal lands. This is con- <br />siderable progress. The states, in effect, admit the sup~Qmacy <br />of those "powers" arising from the federal constitution, and <br />the federal government is backin~ away from the Pelton Dam <br />decision. <br />But that remaining problem is knotty enough and important <br />enough to give us all food for thought for a very considerable <br />time. <br /> <br />The so-called Barrett 2i11 would require federal agencies <br /> <br /> <br />to obtain their rights to the "se of water in conformity with <br /> <br /> <br />state laws. <br /> <br />Some agencies, such as the Interior Department, historically <br /> <br />has followed this practice. The Justice Department, however, is <br /> <br />opposed to this legislation. Mr. Vorton ably states the position <br /> <br />of that department when he says: <br /> <br />"It is not surprising to me that my brother <br />Chilson takes the views which he has expressed. <br />They are the natural consequence of his Colorado <br />origins and practice. But as I understand them, <br />they represent the minority view of the Reclamation <br />States by their own court decisions. As I am sure <br />many of you already know there are 17 bodies of <br />water law.. not one - in the 17 Reclamation States. <br />But, with some varations, there are two primary, <br />historic theories as to the source of title to the <br />use of water acquired by appropriators. One is the <br /> <br />-9- <br />