Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001544 <br /> <br />1~Jr: <br /> <br />?~.~~Jt~ <br /> <br />!II- <br /> <br />contracts are authorized to transfer all <br />or a portion of water subject to such contract <br />to any other California water user or water <br />agency, . . . state of Federal agency, Indian <br />Tribes . . . <br /> <br />See !'j3405(a), HR 429. <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />Significantly, section 3405 (a) permits transfers of California <br /> <br /> <br />water instate to Indian Tribes. Moreover,!'j 3706 of HR 429 in turn <br /> <br />authorizes Arizona instate transfers from an Indian Tribe. Thus, <br /> <br />!'j3706 provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall amend <br /> <br />certain Central Arizona Project water delivery contracts between <br /> <br />the United States and the San Carlos Apache Tribe to allow the <br /> <br />Tribe to lease water to ,the City of Scottsdale or to a number of <br /> <br />other cities, including Phoenix. <br /> <br />Water marketing is common throughout the Colorado Basin, not <br />only in the Lower Basin but in the Upper Basin as well. Colorado <br /> <br />has had marketing statewide for years and in Utah water marketing <br /> <br />is also common. <br /> <br />With respect to interstate sales or lease of <br /> <br />water, two conflicting principles are operative. <br /> <br />First is the <br /> <br />principle that the States reserve the right of public 'ownership <br />over water. In contrast 'to the notion of public ownership is the <br />law of prior appropriation which has treated water as a property <br />right to be traded in the market as other properties. See Johnson <br /> <br />and Dumars, supra, at p. 377. <br /> <br />The United States Supreme Court <br /> <br />decision in Sporhase v. Nebraska, supra, appears to have tilted the <br />balance away from public ownership, by confirming that western <br /> <br />water resources are commodities in commerce and as such must be <br /> <br />18 <br />