|
<br />--~--
<br />.. ,\';- ao
<br />
<br />58
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER, RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />59
<br />
<br />Stnte cnnnot by itJ.c IpJ;::islfttlon df!Rtro;y tIle rlJ:;ht ot the United Stntes, as the
<br />owneI' of luuds l.lOnkrill~ Oil a stl-e:lm, to the continued flow of it.OJ wuU>rs; so
<br />fur lit least as lIlUY be Deces~ary [or the ben('ficiul nses or the GovenUllent
<br />Ilroperty:'
<br />
<br />(The "Second" I>oint relates to the navin'at,ion servitude not here
<br />. ) ~,
<br />apposite.
<br />Some of thc lcg-isbtivc proposals ha.vc heen dcvised in terms of
<br />reqllirinl! the UlIited States and itH onieers to sllbmit. to St.ate law not
<br />only in the nCf}uisition of any necessary water I'i4rhts for all Fedcral
<br />pl'ojeds hut f11so in t lie {\(llllrllistl"f1t.i01I~ nllU oper:~ion of tIle projects
<br />thC'IIl~('-I\"t\s. ITel"e is where we I!"P-t, all IlIixl'd up-as I said hcfore-
<br />b,~t.'n'('n t-Iw (,OIlCl'pt. of ,!!o\"el"llllll~lltfll power, nn the one hand, nlld
<br />pJ"~p(,J't..Y, 011 thc.oj 1\C'l" hall~1. From the standpoint of propeli,y rig-hts,
<br />wIllIe allYo~1C mIght. quest.lon the prudenp-o of it" I doubt t.hat ftnyone
<br />~Ol~ld l]lwstwn the power of Con~r('ss to give, awn)' propert.y. I think
<br />It ,s also competent for COnl!l"." to say to Federal omcers t.hat. they
<br />shall cOllfol'm to State law us fur as they can wit.hout defeat.inrr t.he
<br />Fede)'al purpose in the acquIsition of water rig:hts. ~
<br />But. the rub (:omC:-i whell St.ate Llw e.ithcr do('s not make adequate
<br />proyi~ioll for the ]1r'Clls of a p:\lt.icubl" Frdcl'al project. or program or
<br />whell it lll:Ikr,~ pl.o,.i~ion int'ompnt,ihle wit,h t.he aecOIllpJishJII<'.llt. of the
<br />Fedel':ll pllrpose. Tho 11ltel'ior Ilepal'tmellt. itse.1f has pointed 01lt., in
<br />its reports on some of t.he pellclin.:.r bills, that. some, State laws do.not
<br />~Yen rN.'og-nizc some of its own prog-l'allls a.s uell(>,ficial purposes. .And
<br />lf this is true of t.hc Intcrit)r Department, it. is a fortiori t.rue of man)'
<br />pro!!,l':lll1s aclministerecl by other dep:ntmellts, I t.hink t.hat my
<br />brother Chilson misses t.he mark w'hen he. argiles t.hat t.here should
<br />not be two bodies of so-c.dlecl wflter law-onc Federal and one State.
<br />No olle that I know of proposes that there Hhollld be. any I!enel':ll hody
<br />of Fecleral W:lter la'\', The fad is t.h:lt there am 17 bodies of State
<br />water law in the reclalllfltioll States. "Then CongT{~SS allthorizes and
<br />direds:1 Fedpl':ll tlepnrt1l1(>llt or oflicer to constl'lH.'t. flnd opel'ate fl proj-
<br />oct 01' con<llH.:t, a pl.ogTnm within its own sphere of deleg:;ltccl powrr'S,
<br />the Const.it.ution does not. permit. a const.rllet.ion which subjects t.hat.
<br />direction to the choice of consent 01' veto by any St.ate or State omeial.
<br />And t.hat hllS been the. organic In.w !;ince at least. 17R0. Never has this
<br />been mOl.e succinctly f;tnted t.han in the 10~1 dec.ision ot Arizn1Hl. v.
<br />Califo7'nia, in 283 D,S,," where the Court said: "The Unit.ed States
<br />mny perf0l1n jt~ fnnctions. wit.hout. confol'Tllill,!! to the police r€'~nl[t-
<br />tions of a St<ltC." On any is:::.nc of control, whether it ne wate-r re-
<br />sources dcn~lopmellt. or the COllstnldioll nnd operation of n post office,
<br />or flnythin.!! p,lse wit.hill the sphere of dele,!!:lted powers, t.hat is t.he
<br />. law j and after 170 years we mfl'y jnst. :1S well get w:;ed t.o it. Recnuse
<br />I don't, t.hink we are. g-oin::r to c.h~lIg-c it. Else, we would go back to
<br />the .Art.icles of Confederation in plnCp. of t.he Const.itut.ion.
<br />There. has been some very loose talk nhout the ~o-called delegoation
<br />of t.he power of Con.!!ress to Sta.t.e lep;isbtures. The nrgument seems
<br />to be baRed ~m some kind of an al!ency theory-t.hat. Conl!ress, as prin:
<br />eipal, can give n sort. of power of attorney to the State leg-islat.ure as
<br />its aW'nts, Now this may well be t.rue, in a manner of speaking, as to
<br />
<br />. Arizona v. Cali/ornla, 283 U.S. 423, 4151 (1931).
<br />
<br />the aCCJuisit.ion of private, t.hird party rights. And, in that sense, it
<br />may be true of t.he ncts of 18aa 1870 and 1877,30 But who eyer heard
<br />of an agent t.elling' his princiJ;n.1 wh'et.hcr or not he-t.he principal-
<br />could or could not rl? t.hus ~nd so--and get away with it.
<br />The .old Hutte e,l.'! Ih:ter Co, case," of 1905, has been cited as
<br />autho!'lty for the pl'OpOSltlOll that Cong!'ess C:lll provide for the ap-
<br />plIcatlOll. of ."local custo.IllS or rules?f miners" in dr.tcrmining :1 part
<br />of t.he e!'lte!'l:! for the (lIsl,osal of mllleral land. The COII!'t hel.1 thot
<br />"* * * C . I .'
<br />. ol~gress ml,g: lt rlght.fully entrnst to the loc:lI lcg-islaturc the I
<br />rlcte~I~~lIlatlOll of n~lIIor 1~1atteI'S respect.ing the d~spo:;a~ of. these
<br />land::;. Hut the pOll1t whIch seems al\\':1\"s to he nllsscn 111 the ref.
<br />er~-nc('.s to this C:lse, js that the "minor l;laUers" thus ldft to dctcr~
<br />mlllat.lOn by the cOlllent of State law and custom became Fedemlla",
<br />by adopt.ion-:not. by delegat.ioll, The case is no authorit.y whateye;
<br />for a contentIOn t.hat local custom 01' State law can be etTect.i,'e to
<br />eont.rol t.he perform:~nce of the eonstitut.ion:llly authorized functions,
<br />of t.he U I1Ited States ,tself, '
<br />Similarly, t.he !'ecent ease of United Statcs v, Sharpnack," 1958, I
<br />has been CIted, That case had to do with the Assimilat.ive C!'imes
<br />Act" which make State criminal stat.utes applicable within Federal
<br />~ncl:l.ves. But, hero agam, that act was sustained on the around that
<br />It .w~s a "d.eliberate conti]~uing n~opt~on" of State la: reg.ll"ding
<br />Cl"lIII lIm,l ollcnse~. ':fhere IS nothmg H1 the case which sanctions
<br />delegatIOn of legislatIve power, The ndoption of ce,tain State crimi-
<br />nal laws snnply ma,le them a p:lrt. of the body of Fedaal law to be
<br />enforced. hy Fedc'ral officials in ~he administ-r:1tion of Federal justice.
<br />Thus, thIS case, too, has to do WIth t.he c.rcrci.se of Federalle<rislati,'e
<br />power-not the de~eg:ltion or abdication of it. It is no authol'i~y what-
<br />e\'er fOl' a contentlOn !hat St:lte laW,.flS ~tnte law, can cont.ro), regu-
<br />late, or yeto t he exerCise of the constltutlOnnlly authorized functions
<br />of t.he United States. '
<br />
<br />So,~n closing, I rettll'n to the quotatio~1 from A}"izon~ Y. CaHfm-nia,34
<br />th:lt The Umted States may perform Its functIOns WIthout conform-
<br />!ng to t.he I~oliee .regulationH of a State," You Illay remember that
<br />IS the citse lTl wlllch Al"l7..on:l. songht to pre,.ent the construction of
<br />Boulde,,' Dam on the ground th:~t the Secretary of t.he Interior had not
<br />submItted t.he plans and spe~IIlcat.lOns to the State engineer for ap-
<br />prova). I should .thmk It mIght be {'.nough, t.o this n.ndience, for me
<br />t.o pomt out. that If t.he law were (liH'crent-as I do not. think it. can
<br />be-:-we would not today have the cO.l1lplc~ and highly beneficial
<br />dmelopment of the lower Colorado Basrn. "e would not today have
<br />the Cent.ral Valley development in California-if the recent],; O\'er-
<br />ruled declslOn of t.he California Supreme Court were controiling in
<br />
<br />30 In Ff'rlcral P01l'Jt'r Commisllion v. Orc!7on. :149 U.S. 4:15, the Court empbnsl:ted that tbege
<br />nct9 did not. oPl!rnr.e n!l n g'rnnt to the Stnte-, but were elt'ecth.e only "for purpfl~l's of
<br />(l~h.llte. nCfJlll~.I(lon. The pertlncnt Benteace9 are: -'The pllrpo!'e of the nets of IS6lJ find
<br />It;70 \\as ~o\ernmcntlll recognition nnd f;anctlon of pos!'essorl'" rlj::hts O~ publiC lnnd~
<br />Ill!1'ertf'd und,'r local law8 nnd customs. Jcnll;~Oll v. Kirk 08 U.S 45::\ The Desert L d
<br />Act 13\.et~tl, for purpo!;'ea of prll'"nte acqulflltlon, soil nnd wnter rlihts.on publlc lands ~~d
<br />prov el thnt such water rll:::ht8 were to be neQulred In the manner provided by tbe law
<br />of the Stnt~ of locutIon. California-OreOan Pvwer 00. \". Beaver Portland Cement Co 205
<br />U.S. 142. !{~e all<o, Ncbraflka \". Wlloml710, 325 U.S. 589, 611-010:' .,
<br />11 B.4tt('; elf" Water 00. v. Baker 196 U S 119 (1905)
<br />0355 U.S. 2Sfi (1058). ' . . .
<br />. IS U.S.C. 13 (1948).
<br />"283 U.S. 423, 4~1 (1931).
<br />
|