Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />. - <br /> <br />001983 <br /> <br />and to some extent regarding the federal courts as Indifferent or hostile <br />to settled state systems. Related to all this Is the resentment sometimes <br />expressed at the amount of federal land wIthin a state's borders. <br />Again at the rIsk of oversimplIfying, the federal perspective on <br />these Issues springs mainly from the following considerations: There Is <br />a national Interest In management of federal lands which cannot be limIted <br />by state lines. Congress has established the purposes for and procedures <br />by which this land should be managed pursuant to the constitutional pro- <br />vision which gives Congress plenary power over federally-owned property, <br />and the constItutional doctrIne of federal supremacy. These purposes can <br />be as diverse as protecting fish and wildlife and theIr habitat, protecting <br />lands through watershed protection, producing food and fiber for the Nation's <br />needs, meeting national energy goals from federally-owned resources on <br />the public lands, providing for the growing natIonal demand for outdoor <br />recreatIon, and preserving ecosystems In their natural condition. Even <br />apart from the particular features of a single state's laws, It Is diffi- <br />cult to deal with a shifting mosaic of state laws rather than relyIng <br />on federal law to secure water rights. Moreover, complete reliance on <br />some existing state laws would not allow the federal agencies to discharge <br />their congresslonally-mandated management responsibilIties; e.g., some <br />state laws do not recognize appropriative water rights In maintenance of <br />minimum water levels In streams (hereafter generically referred to as <br />"Instream flows"), or afford them a low priority, although maintenance <br />of minimum stream flows Is sometimes necessary to carry out federal <br /> <br />-13- <br />