Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1989] <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION <br /> <br />B. Section 101 (g) Applied <br /> <br />1. The Corps' Public Interest Review <br /> <br />The public interest review of the Corps of Engineersl21 under <br />tion 404 is not properly an allocation determination; nor is it the <br />bodiment of a federal public trust doctrine. As explained in part II <br />of this article, the legal literature on the public trust doctrine cle <br />illustrates that, when each state was admitted to the Union, that <br />pect of sovereignty related to the public trust in the waters withir <br />boundaries passed to the states. 122 <br />The Corps, on the other hand, is bound in permit issuance d <br />sions to effectuate the public interest according to the statutory di <br />tion of Congress.'23 Other federal statutes do not enlarge the Co <br />jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, but such laws as the Ene <br />gered Species Actl24 impose an obligation to consider environmCl <br />impacts.12' Under section 10 I (g), a water right is the state's exp <br />sion of the public interest manifested through allocation of a spec <br />quantity of water for a particular use. As the United States Supn <br />Court has said: "The public interest in such state control in the 1 <br />land states is definite and substantial."126 Unless a compelling fed, <br />interest of a preemptive nature intervenes, section 10 I (g) establish. <br />presumption that the national public interest will be served by i! <br />ance of the 404 permits necessary for construction and operation <br />waterworks, upon which the exercise of water rights necessa <br />depends. 127 <br /> <br />When water quality regulations are used to control point 1 <br />nonpoint source pollutant discharges for protection of uses in and <br />the waters, federal water quality law and state water quantity law, <br />be rationalized and synchronized. If, however, the Clean Water Ac <br />construed to preclude the diversion of water from the natural strel <br /> <br />121. 33 C.F.R. i 320.4(0) (1988). <br />122. In Colorado, fOf e;ll;ample, the constitution provides that the right of Colorado citizel <br />appropriate the unappropriated waters of the state for beneficial use shall never be denied. See PE <br />v. Emmert, 198 Colo. 137,597 P.2d 1025 (1979). In California, the state has utilized the public I <br />doctrine to require and allow the allocation and reallocation of appropriative water rights in ordt <br />serve riparian values other than those of the appropriator. National Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Cc <br />33 CaUd 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346, cerL denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983). <br />123. Where there is Jaw to apply, the public trust doctrine cannot be invoked. See Sierra Ch <br />Block, 622 F. Supp. 842, 866 (D. Colo. 198:5). The public trust doctrine is a matter of state Jaw, <br />federal law. See olso Gould, supra note 89, at 12-2:5; Wilkinson. The Public Trust Doctrine in Pl <br />Land Law, 14 V.c. DAVIS L. REV. 269 (1980). <br />124. 16 V.S.C. H 1531-1543 (1982). <br />125. Riverside Irrigation Dist. v. Andrews, 758 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1985). <br />126. California Oregon Power Co. v. Bel1ver Portland Cement Co., 295 V.S. 142, 165 (193: <br /> <br />I"" Tl._ ""~~p' ~~~..,_.;___ _~__.'.J. .l... L'._ ...._._ ..,. . <br />