FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1989] WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION water within its jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated otherwise impaired by this chapter."9! This provision reaffirms longstanding deference of Congress to. the jurisdiction and role of SI water allocation systems and determinations. As Senator Wal stated, he and other legislators were increasingly concerned that Clean Water Act might be used by federal agencies to control how, for what uses the states should allocate water. Their primary cone was to prevent interference with the creation and administratior water rights within a state priority system!2 As a result, sect IOI(g) squarely reaffirms a fundamental principle of federalism t the stales are free to choose which allocation doctrine will be follO\ within their jurisdictions, how much water should be allotted to c( peting uses, and how water rights shall be administered with regar( competing uses of water. A review of federal law prior to enactment of section 10 I clearly demonstrates that the "Wallop Amendment" was intendec continue and reaffirm the preexisting legal and historic role of states in matters of water rights. I. Severance of the Water from the Public Lands Commencing in the mid-nineteenth century as the West was ing settled, the United States Congress, through a series of statu severed the waters of the United States from the public lands and I claimed the riparian water law doctrine as the law of the nation. stead, rights to use water were to be determined according to the: of the states, as the Supreme Court aptly described in California ( gon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co. 93: [The Desert Land Act] effected a severance of all waters upon the public domain, not theretofore appropriated, from the land itself. . . . If it be conceded that in the absence of federal legislation the states would be powerless to affect the riparian rights of the United States or its grantees, still, the authority of Congress to vest such power in the state, and that it has done so by the legislation to which we have referred, cannot be doubted. Upon admission to the Union, each state was free to allocate WI within its boundaries according to its chosen system of law, sub. 91. 33 V.S.C. 9 1251(g) (1982). 92. Senator Wallop said: "The conferees accepted an amendment which will reassure the that it is the policy of Congress that the Clean Water Act will not be used for the purpose of iolcrr with Slate water rights systems." 123 CoNG. REC. 39,211 (1977) (remarks orSeR. Wallop), reprint 3 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT, supra note 27, at 531.