WSPC03997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l'ltld?13 ......1,.,0..1;. -13- In the m8tter of the relationship between Federal and State rights and interests in water, may we now take a look at the State side. Time does not permit a discussion of the distinction between the riparian and appropriation doctrines of water law. It will be assumed that this is understood. The full povler of choice between the riparian and appropriation doctrines is in the etate. This has been held in a number of decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The equality of states rJeans equality of political power and hence every state has the same pOTIer to control by appropriate police regu- lations the water flo,-ling vu thin its borders, subject to equitable apportionment of the waters of an interstate stream and the power of the Federal Government to regulate their use--in the substantial interest of CG..'illlerce under the commerce clause of the Constitution. There is no provision of the Federal Constitution which delegates to the central Government power to control the acquisition and use of water for bene- ficial purposes, except the power to regulate commerce. All powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, or reasonably implied therefrom, 'are reserved to the states. Realizing this principle the United States has on occasion claimed proprietary ownership in water \lith pO\ler to dispose of it under Clause 2, Section 3, Article IV of the Constitution. The courts have uniformly held, however, that application of this constitutional provision imposes t\'!o conditions: (a) Consistency with the fundamental k'rinciples of our dual form of government; and (b) no interference .uth the powers reserved to the states. The only o\,nership in water being one of A right of use, neither the United States nor any state can possess a true ovvner"hi~ in the corpus of the water. Thus a state does not exercise control over water as a proprietor but as