|
<br />, ..'
<br />
<br />56
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />57
<br />
<br />tho so.callcu oWI1~r5hip of nnappropriated water. In thi~ ~hort space,
<br />prm.:i~ion of 5talcIIlcnt mu~t. be sacrificed ~,o brml.(~ generalIties. I d01!'t
<br />think it is a queHtion which can bc outlsfact<,ll'lly or accurat.ely d,s-
<br />cussed unti \ it is related to the facts of particular cases. But even
<br />so-wilh this warning and for today's purposes only-I will under-
<br />take a little of it.
<br />It is not. surprising to me that my brot.her Chilson takes the vie'~s
<br />which he has expressed. They a.re the natural consequence of hIS
<br />Colorado origins llnll practice. But as I understand thC1~, they repre-
<br />sent. the minorit.y view of the reclamation States by their own co~rt
<br />decisions. As I am Slll'~ many of you already know there are 17 bodies
<br />of wa.tcl' la.w-not one-in the 17 l'cd:llllntion Slates. But, ,....ith some
<br />variations, there are two primar~, historic thcori~s as to the ~ource
<br />of tit.le to the nse of wat.er aC1Jlllred by ap'proprlUtors, One IS t.he
<br />so-called Colorado doctrine which Mr, Chllson has advanced, The
<br />othel" is the so-called California doctrine, which text writers have
<br />classified::ls t.he majority, historic, and correct view. I .would like to
<br />claim credit for the inwntion of t.he California doetnne, ~cause ,I
<br />think it is basically and logically eOlTeet. But t.he fact. 15 that It
<br />existed::ls a result of State court dcci~ions se\"eral decades be.fore I \~ns
<br />horn. It eertainlv WflS not fln inventinn of the Department of ,fustlce.
<br />Under t.he Cali'fornia doct.rinC', the right ncquired by prior approp-
<br />pri::lt.ion on the public domain is cOll.si~lercd to be founded on a want
<br />from the V.S, GOI'el'lllllent as t.he orrglllal, sole owuer of the,land and
<br />\Vllter. This is t.he onlr doctrinp, which c~n .poss~bly e~l)lam tl!e ?o-
<br />fl.xi:.;ten\.e of riparian rlp:hts and npproprmtIve. rIghts In a .ma]orIty
<br />of the '''estern Stnt(l:s. This doctrine does not. Ig-nore the eXistence of
<br />the acts of lSGG,"ISiO," and ISH," to which ;llr, Chilson hns refclTed,
<br />Rnt.her it recoglllzPs t.}lf'm for what t.hey nre: Ads of. Congress, an.d
<br />thus Federall:;-w. True, appropriative rights :1re oht:uned under thIS
<br />doctrine "in the mnnner provided by" local law ltnd custom, but .the
<br />rip;hts themselves-that is the title-are do.raigned from the Vmted
<br />States, ,
<br />The Co~orndo doctrine, on t.he othC'r hand~ nrgues that In some way,
<br />the titl€'-. to the use of water was surrendered by the General Govern-
<br />ment. to the re"pedil'e Western States, "nel that at least from then on
<br />t.itle to the lIse of ",ateI' is derai!!11ed from the St.ate, and not the
<br />l..Tniterl States. It is ~ol1l('timcs s:~id that t.his transfer from the Na-
<br />tional Government to the States was accomplished as an .incident of
<br />st.:ltehooel, This stems from the idea t.hat States are ad'U1tted on an
<br />"eqnn[ lootiIlO','.'2D Hilt that. :1rlTlrment does not hold wflter-if I muy
<br />use a pl1n-b;eallse t.hnt is not ~.h:1t "equal foot.ing" me-ans, as shown
<br />bv numr.rOllS decided cnses.:n
<br />~ Another art,!lllnent proceeds on tlH~ t.heory thflt the transfer of
<br />owner:"hip resulted from some kind of cont.r~dll?l conseql1~n.ce of the
<br />congressionnl ncceptnnce of the St.ate const.lt.ut~ons co~taInmg ~ome
<br />reference to water, But if thnt is sound, how (lid t.he tlt.le pass Ill, at
<br />least 1:3 of t.he 17 reclamat.ion States, which eit.her had no constlt.utlOn
<br />
<br />IT ..'oct of .Tuly ~G. IF:GG. 14 ~tat. 2~:l. "ep 4:1 V.S.C. 601, D.Dd nlso 30 U.S.C. 51,
<br />. 1.!J .'od of .Tuly 9. 1870. 16 Rtnt. 218. !If'e 4:\ V.S.C. (lt11.
<br />l-Thp De~l'rt Land Ad of Mar. 3,11'77,19 ~tnt. :\77.43 D.S.C. :\21.
<br />'" Th~ l'xprPlllllon doe'! not Rppenr In the Conlltltntlon ttlll'lf, nrt. IV, Rf!C'. 8, clnuse 1;
<br />but I,. tr('Q,ul'ntl,y used In court declsloDs nod acts of Congress relating to the admission
<br />of ~aate8.
<br />t'I Rj:., PnUcd 8ultc! v. TC7as, 339 U.S. 107 (10M.)
<br />
<br />yet in existence or had a const.it.ution t.hat mado no pertinent mention
<br />of water when Congress nctcd with respect t.o t.heir admission 122 .And
<br />how could it even bo true tOllay in ahout half of the 17 redamat.ion
<br />Staws whose constitutions still contain no pertiuent reference to the
<br />sutject !
<br />The next eontent.ion is that. this transfer of title took place some-
<br />how as a reslllt of t.he Desert Land ,\ct," I ha I'e a!I'eady commented
<br />011 the. D{\:"l'l't Laud Act in re~pect. to t.he Cnlifol'ni~ doctrine. nut
<br />how COli "I the Deselt. Land Act ha,'e aecolllpli,herlthis at all in those
<br />of the ]7 I'rc/alllation StutC's to wllich tlJ(~ DC'srrt. Land .Act has ncn:>r
<br />rxtl."Hdrd? :14
<br />I wOlllrl os1\: llC'xt. how, uIldeI' :l1lV of the fOI'C!O'oincr nl'011n1C'nts, the
<br />throry of St:lte o\\TC'l"ship, explieit. in the Colo;acloM(loctrine, ('an be
<br />rC'cOlll.~ilf'ct wit h nllmCr()\IS Supreme Conrt drt'isiom; in t.his field? I
<br />~g-l"eC that tllC question was not (lecidecl in Nebraska v. Tryomil1g~"J5 or
<br />11\ tho h:rw.hoe case..;; 2.. bst year. That simply mefl.IlS that it was not
<br />in those cnses decided either way, Bnt. what. abont the so-called reser-
<br />cat.ion cases! 27 If t,he title has passed to the State how can the United
<br />States rose.no. it. for the nse of anybody"
<br />, .Finally, ",hy, if t.he title is ah'eady in t.he State, is .Federal legoisla-
<br />t.lon HOW sought.? Certainly Congre~c:.s has no po\,"cr t.o act with re-
<br />spect to propert.y, the title to whioh has alreadv \"Osted in the Stnt.e,
<br />It sC'ems to me that this series of questions exposes the fa.llacy of
<br />the so-callc<l Colorado doctriIlE", and shows the log-ical neccssity of
<br />t.hinkin~ in terms of t.he hist.oric California doctrilie if we a.re to ar-
<br />rivr at nny rrrrli::;tic conclusions.
<br />,This does not at. all mean that Stntes "ro incapable of Jep;islatingo
<br />wlthm t.hClr own proper spheres. I clOllbt that. the rrrt.ionnle of these
<br />relat.ionships has ever heen better summurized th:1n it. was by t.hese
<br />wOl'ds in the lR99 opinion of the Slipl'eme COlllt in the Rio (}7'a71de
<br />case: 28
<br />
<br />A\th'HI~h this power of chan;:rillg" the C(jrnmon law rule as to gtreflm~ wit bin
<br />its dominion undoubtedly hploll~~ to each ~t:1tp, yet two Iimitfltioll~ mllst be
<br />n.~('O~'l1i7.(,ll: First, that in the absence of !;}leciflc authority from Con~'Tess a
<br />
<br />~: Th.-, CXt"'ptlnnl< nre:
<br />'T'(',\::JI': Th(' Tf-:'C:l." ~ltll.'ltlon dtrr('rs from :111 othl!r StfltP!l bec.'lll!'e of ItEI Imm(>dlntely
<br />prIor llHkllf>lH!(.nce and lt~ retention of "1111 the vacant nnd unllpproprlntf'd lnnrl.'! Ivlng'
<br />~.hhln Ir'! 11nLlt~. . .. ..... Th~ United States ncver oWDcd IlIlY "public lnnd,'" all dlstlll-
<br />J:'lll<:h"<1 trnnl "IH'()nlrl'd I:1.nd," [n Tc~nl<.
<br />I {l:1ho : TJIo~ 1<1:111" (>on<:tltlltlon or Isc:n. nrt. T. !,:pc. 14. Rnd art. XV. ~.,ntnlnpd pxtcDj;h'"e
<br />pro.I'-lons n'Inl"11 to w:ltf'r. Irl:lho wn!'l :l.rlmltted b'l" the l\ct ot Jul'l" 3 IS90 whIch "ac.
<br />('''ptell. Tallf;"{1 :1n(1 (""II11rmed" thl!' con!ltltlltlon.' .,.
<br />\'".I.,'mill::": Th,.. 'Wynm!ol:: ~nn~tltlltlon of 1S.C:!l. nrt. T. ~,..('. :n, nnd Art. VTTT. contfllnl'd
<br />l'xt,..n,;!n-' pro,.l"I,.n!:: T"lrlt('rl to wntl'l'. W....omln(!' wn!l n(lmlttcd bv the net of Julv 11 1S!)O
<br />whlell ",'("('''rtl'tJ. mtifil'" I1n(l Cf>11tirmE'''.' HI!" ("(Jnstltutlml.' . . ,
<br />~f'"W :'>f,'xk,,: Th.' ;:11\1nrjllll ]l,~r" l!'l ]1'''1' dl'.'lr. Thl' Kew 7'or(>l(t~o c,\n<:t[tllt\"fl of .Tnn. 21,
<br />1911. nrt. X\'I. 11'>...!arl"1. Intl'r :l.lln. Ihnt 111(> "l1f1:lppr"Jlrl.,tp<l wnt€-r" h"Jnn::"l'd ..to the
<br />1)1111l1c .. .. .." !-11hj,',~t to nPI'Toprl.lt!on "In nccorrl.1n('~ with t11l' In\\"!'' "r the $:rnt...." Th.1t
<br />II': not, of ("onT!'I'. l'()lIh'":1]r'nt to :lny rlN'I:1rntlon or Stntf' own(>r!'hlp. nnd In no !"('n!"c tantR-
<br />mount to :l. I:"rllT\t rr"m thl' Unit...,,! Stnt('!<. Thho. wa!l follow('d h\' thl' e{ln):r('~"lonRl .T. Res.
<br />of AnI:". 21, Ifltl. :l7 ~tnt. ::\9. wlll(>h TCQ1Lircd certnln nmpndmcnt'! to thl' New :o.fexlco
<br />("1\T1!ltltlltl(l!l. Imt thl' nTlwTlrlml'nt'! <'l111 nnt InvoIvp :l.n'l"thlol:" on tlll'l ~l1hj('r:'t of wntN'.
<br />Followlnl! thf' :Hlopllon (,f 8ueh nmendment!'l the President proclnlmpd the admlF~loD on
<br />.Tun. fl. T!l1~. :n ~tnt. 17~:\.
<br />~~ ~,..... fnntnol"!" HI nnd :10. .
<br />:;f, TIlf' Illtll:1tlon cnnnot. of COl1r~p. he flrp~l'nt In Texa!l b(>call!'le Te:'l:nA WlI!l npVf'r n "pllblle
<br />1,~I"l,I" ~tn'l'. 1I!'l nre\'loll!o'l.v n..t....1. nut the DCSl'rt Lnnd .\ct was ne....er extended to Kanans,
<br />Xt'hr""~:1. ;-''"('\\" :\fl'xl...<'. Ilnd O~lnh,)mll..
<br />::lI :1:?:i tJ.K ~S!l (]fH!i),
<br />... FOllr ('n"l'll. :157 U~. ~75. ,Tune 2::\. 19:iR: The T'.(lnhfH' Trrif]fltion n{lltrld find th~
<br />.<;:trr!f" o/.Cfl1i/fJrl1!rr \.. ",('"nrnc~.rn. pt fll.: Thf!.Marlcra Trrionfion njl/tr,ct and fhr Rtntc 01
<br />~"lr'onll" v. .'~ff"'"l'r. ('f nl.: The .lfn(f('rfl lrrz171'11101l Dllltrlct v. A.lbrmico.' and The Sonta
<br />}lnrh"'rfl r"'lnt,/ lVfllrr .-1171'''('1/ '.. Rn1nmn, ('t al.
<br />or. F.'l:nml'lf': r...rfrrnl T'fJ1rl"T nornmI,IIl/ifln ..... ()TCI70n, :149 H.S. 4::\;"; (lA:"i:'i).
<br />~ ['nitrd Sfntcfl v. Rio Orn,,"" '''riqrrtion COlllpa,IJI. 174 U.~. G9fl (1809).
<br />
|