My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11904
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11904
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:19:15 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:15:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8410.350
Description
Platte River Basin - Basin Multistate Organizations - Missouri Basin IAC
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
12/17/1959
Author
Raphael J Moses
Title
Federal vs State Water Rights - A Middle Ground
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />00257"'7 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the State of Oregon. The State of Oregon contended <br />that the Congressional Acts of 1866, 1870 and the <br />Desert Land Act of 1877 gave Oregon the power to regu- <br />late the use of the water of the Deschutes River. <br /> <br />"The court, 1n arriving at its conclus1on, held <br />that these Congressional Aots apply only to the 'Public <br />lands' because they had been reserved by the Federal <br />Government for power site purposes. The oourt reasoned <br />that the Desert Land Aot, providing for disposal of the <br />publiO domain, 1s inapplioable to lands which are un- <br />qualifiedly subject to sale and disposition because <br />they had, by reservation of the Federal Government, been <br />appropriated for some other purposes. <br /> <br />"Although this decision did not involve water rights, <br />it was immediately used by the Department of Justice in <br />the Hawthorne case in Nevada and the Blue River cases in <br />Colorado to assert that, l'Ihen any portion of the public <br />domain has been withdrawn or reserved by the Federal <br />Government for any purpose, there immediately vests in <br />the Federal Government ss ot 'the dllte of withdrawal or <br />reservation a right to use all water necessary to caI'rf <br />out the purposes of the withdrawal. As a consequence <br />~ rights to the use of water initiated after the date <br />ot the withdrawsl are subject to the rights of the <br />Federal Government even though those ri€hts may not be <br />exercised for many years thereafter.l4- <br /> <br />"In other words, under the theory of the Department <br />of Justice any right to the use of water initiated <br />under State law after the date of a reservation or with- <br />drawal of pUblic land is merely a 'squatter's right.' <br />If and when the Federal Government desires to use the <br />water for the purpose of the Withdrawal or reservation, <br />it may deprive the user of water who obtained his rights <br />under State law without compensation therefor. Since <br />statutes of limitation do not run against the Federal <br />Government, the 'squatter's right' oan never ripen into <br />a title superior to the rights of the Federal Government.iS <br />As soon as the word spread of this position of the Depart- <br />ment of Justioe, oonsternation reigned among water oil'. <br />cles in the ~1est and the reaotion was immediate." <br /> <br />Imagine how those of us in the !ifestern States felt about <br /> <br />the language of Judge Ross in the Hawthorne oase when he said~ <br /> <br />"Both on reason and~ as we Shall see in a moment, <br />on authority, this Court 1s forced to the oonclusion <br />that there is no mandate in Constitutional, statutory, <br />or decisional law that oompels the Federal Government <br /> <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.