WSP11904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 00258'1 . so-oalled "Colorado Dootrine~ whioh r.r. Chilson has advanoed. The other is the so-calied "California Dootr.insll, which toxt writers have classified as the majority, histcric, and oorrect view. I would like to claim credit for the invention of the "California Doctrine", because I think it is basically and logically correct, But the fact is that it existed as a result of State court decisions several decades before I was DQrn:---It certainly was not an invention of the Department of Justice." "Under the California Doctrine, the right acquired by prior appropriation on the publiC domain is con- sidered to be foulmed on a grant from the United States Government as the original, sole owner of the land and water. This is the only doctrine which can possibly explain the co-existence of riparian rights and ap- propriative rights in a majority of the Western States. This doctrine does not; ignore the existence of the Acts of 1866919 1870,20 and J.8'77,21 to which Mr. Chilson has referred. Rather it recognizes them for what they are: Acts of Congress, and thus Federal law. True, appro- priative rights are obtaineclU'iiCfei' this doctrine "in the manner provided by" local law and custom, but the rights themselves - that is the title - are deraigned from the United States. "The Colorado Doctrine, on the other hand, argues that in some way, the title to the use of water was sur- rendered by the General Government to the respective Western States) and that at least from then on title to the use of water is deralgned from the State, and not ehe United States, It is sometimes said that this transfer from the National Government to the States was accomplished as an incident of statehood. This stems from the i~9a that States are admitted on an "equal foot~_ng." But that argument does not hold water - if I may use a pun - because that is not what "equal footing" means, as shown by numerous decided cases.23 "Another argument proceedS on the theory that the transfer of ol~ership resulted from some kind of con- tractual consequence of the congressional acceptance of the State Cor~tltutlons containing some reference to water. But if that 1s sound. how d1d the title pass in at least 13 of the 17 Reclamation States, which either had no Constitution yet in existence or had a Constitution that made no pertinent mention of water2uhen Congress aoted with respect to their admis- sion? And how couJ,Q. it even be true today in about half of the 17 Reclamation States whose Constitutions still contain no pertinent reference to the S~bject? -10-