|
<br />"
<br />
<br />8
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />FEDERAL WATER RIGHTS LEGISLATION
<br />
<br />9
<br />
<br />in question alld that "these acts preclude or rest~ict the scope of the
<br />juri,diction, otherwise apparent on the fae" of the Fedel'l11 Power
<br />Act, allll require the consent of the Stato to a project such as the
<br />one ht~fore us." 40
<br />To this the Comt's answer was, first, that t.he Fellel'l1l Power Act
<br />specifieally covers not. only projects which involve the usa of navigable
<br />waters of the United States but also projects which ntilize lands
<br />owne,1 oy tho Federal Govel'llmcnt" and, secol1dly, that the 1866,
<br />18iO an,[ ISH aets are 1I0t conccrncd with rcserved lands (such as
<br />were"hcre involved) out only with public lauds and tho waters thereon:
<br />Tbe nnture find etTN't of these ads bave heeD discussed pre\'IQusJy by tbls
<br />Court. Tbe Ilurpof:e of the nets of 18liG nnd 1810 was governmental reco.l;'nition
<br />nnd 8andiou oC I1Il~.<.:cssory rights on 1111lJ1ic IfJlIIls l\~scrteU under local lows and
<br />('ustoU!g. JClII1i~fm \'. Kid.., OS U.S. 4;-,3. The Desert Lund Act !'levered, for
<br />lluqJu!':e of prh"ate acquisition, sui! :lIld "':Iter rlgl1ts 01' public landR, :llJd pro-
<br />'\'id('(] th:1t !'Udl woter ribht~ were to be acquired in tl1e manner provided by the
<br />Inw of tbe State o! IOl.:atilm. Cali/orMa Uregon l'o/cer en. v. nearer Portland
<br />Cement Go., 2U;:; U.S. H:!. See olso, Nc'lrR.~k(l v. Wvomin{}. 32:3 U.S. G89, 611-616.
<br />It is not nCt.'('ssnry lor us, In tbe instant case, to pnss upon Ule question
<br />v,.bcther tbis le,l:!."islnlion constitntes the express delegotion or com.eyance of
<br />pO\\"~r that if:: claillJed ll1 the Stnte.ll nec.'lu~e Ibcse ncts ore not npp1it'ahle to
<br />tile rp.scrnd Inntls onel wntcl'~ here In'\'"ohc<l. The De!":crt Land Act covers
<br />"SUUJ'et's of wnter l!'iuJlpl)' upun the publiC 10Dlh~ . . .." The Innds hefore us in
<br />this Crise are !lot "lluhli(~ loud!'>" hut "res('f\"ntions." E\'"en witbout thnt eXllre5!'
<br />restriction of the Desert LOTlll Act to sources of water supply 00 publiC laods,
<br />these act~ woulll nut :IPIlly to resen-ed lallrls [citing United Stares v. O'Donnell,
<br />30a U.S. 501, 510, nnel United Sin 1011 \". ..llinflc3ota, 210 U.S. 181, ~OG]..I
<br />Tho COllrt "Iso reaffirmed the doctrine of the F;".,t [OUia case, saying:
<br />There. . . remuins no q\lcst.ion a~ to the constitutional nud statutor;y nu.
<br />thoritv of the Fcllp["al l'owr-I' COlllllli~:-;ion to f,:rnnt. n ...nlhl Ii('en~e fur l\ po'....er
<br />projec't on rc.:'('rH~l lands of the {jnitell Stntes, prm'icled tl1nt,. Rs required by
<br />the Act, the u:se of water du('!; not eOlll1ld wltb l'('slet1 rl~hta or othf.'rs. To
<br />allow Oregon to '\'"eOO such use, by requiring the State's nddiUonnl permis8lon,
<br />woulll re!";ult in tbE" very dupliclltion or r('J;ulutory control llredudl'd by the
<br />Finlt lo'wa decIsion."
<br />
<br />AND FlVF. ACTS OF CONr.m:SS
<br />
<br />. Th~ (":~atlolJ of .nny oh."truetion, not afflrmnti....ely nuthol"lzed b law M to
<br />the.IM.vl~,\hl~ ('opaclty of nny wllters, in respect of which the Unitell YStot('~ has
<br />jurlsdlctlOlI, IS hereb)' proilibtteel-
<br />
<br />went o.n to make.lhe continuance of any such olJstruction with crrtain
<br />exceptlOlIs, " 1I1,~dc"meallor and provided fl\J'ther t,hat'the obstruc-
<br />tIOn llllg-ht be enJ~lIlecl 01' ordered rt'1I10ved hy a proceeding in equity
<br />brought hy the United States.
<br />The signi1ictlllCO o.f t.hi~ en.1dment Iny Bot ollly in its use of t.he
<br />broa.d phra~l'olo~ry I'creat.lon of any ObStl11djoB '" '" * to tho l1:l.vi-
<br />ga.ule. eapacIt.y of any \\:aters" in cOlltr:tst. to t.lle sOIlJ('.wll:1.t. narl'ower
<br />wordmg: U.fil'.d ('.lscwh('.r~ In the same act ("oustl'lIctiOlIS to lI:lvjlt:lt.ion "
<br />etc.) bu~ III the .assertlOn by Cong;l'css of its intention to n;:'lk('. tl~e
<br />subJect, Its OWII IIlst.en.d, as fOl'lIwrly, of leaving- it to tho Statcs- and
<br />tho courts to dctcrlllllle, under the rule of Willson v B1ac!.',b'.J
<br />Creek. ill11r8/~ {/o.-l~ aud Cooley v. Board of Pod lFal'dcl:8,~B wl;'et}~~r
<br />any gIven oh';trI~etlOnwas or was not permissiole.
<br />R .1\ secoI~d maJor pIece of legislation during- this period was the
<br />ec :u,n:Jt,lOn .Act ~f IDO~.~tI. I-I~ro C01lgress, initiatillg 11 prog-nun of
<br />Fede~al constructIOn of llTlgatlOn works, took" di fIerent tack, The
<br />fi~~ part of sectIOn 8 of tIus act harks back to the 1806 1BiD and
<br />1811 "cts and read as follows: ' ,
<br />
<br />to ~othin.g ~n t~lis Act 8h~1I be cOI~strued ns atTect;ng or int('udell to atTe('t or
<br />In fillY \\uy lI~~e,:fer~ With th~ ln~s ~f on;y State or Territllry relatin:: t~ the
<br />~~n~~~I, .n1~I~rorlrl..tlOn, mm, or (hstrlhutlon of WBter usnd in irrig-atioll,- at' :my
<br />s rig. ncqllJred thereunuer nnd the Secrctnr.r of the Interior ill carr....in.....
<br />out tllc I:rO~I~i~JUS of this Act, shall Ilroc~d in cOII!orrnity ~'ilh !";l1ch inws . .. ..;
<br />But. tillS IS Imme.cliat.el>' fo!lowed by a clause which makes it clear
<br />flint, ~ongTeK.". ,:)llle ~hrect.lIl.g the ~ccretary of tIle Interior to 1'0-
<br />cef'({ III l'~)~lf~l'Il11.t..Y With local la.w. in aCf}lli'ring ri~hts to t.he U~~ of
<br />Uwa~['t.er Ifo"lt lfllga:lOll, w~s Hot wUlvlng certain basic rio-hts which the
<br />III (,,- utes mlg-ht claim: ~
<br />. . . and notl,ing herein shaH In any way affect Rny right or ony State or or
<br />
<br />*In the net ot Mnl".:1, JR9fl Bec 10 :10 St t 1"'1
<br />otl\"l~b. nlltIIOri7.l'd h,. Inw" ~1l9 chn~ . d a.; 1 ... 'ffi:13 U.S.C. 403, the rhl"n!'e "not nmrm-
<br />.12 Pet. :!-la (!821l). S"e to not:J. rmatlvely Iluth')rized uy Coogre,t;s."
<br />.. J2 H..n., :WO 1 18!'i1 I,.
<br />to .\...t or .lUlU" 17 ]')0'" '\'"' St t 38
<br />1(1 It hllfl never uecn 'elrtl;('! . crc~r ,.8. 43 U.s.C.. eh. 12. pr/l'"in.
<br />tlon wonl,1 re!'lllt In nona{'lJ~ll>ltlon t\ ~ether ~ tnll;lrt of the SrcretnrI to tollow thlll dlrec-
<br />'Vo'hether It would he at mOHt nonten!! 00 a wa '.'r r g It for a projl~et under his control or
<br />np In Rf'r[Oll~ tnl;h1on "Inee the prnentl('e: O[ ?]ut1i tThe CJue~tlnD hue probUhlY Dever come
<br />eX~fltl(InR. tu adherp c!of'c[v to th 0 Ie n rrlnr Drp:lTtllJeD t Illls been "lIh few
<br />sentln,;:- .lrlnlon III Un.itf'd Stnt('~ v~ r.~I;;%~htr.i;.~u~;DJkntl< of Jhe F:p~tlon. (S~e tho:' dl~.
<br />Bummnrl7.ln~ U memornndum tr/lm lh Co I . QC ('0., 339 U.S. 72:i. 700n (HI50)
<br />of I!rclHmllt!'ln r,raetleeB.) Illflcl'de It~m R~lun:r nt Rcclnmntlnn with res/lect to Bureau
<br />relatln~ to the ('ontr/ll B ro rl I' n OU!; I t C f'rctlon speak!! only 0 ..laws....
<br />an" hnM not l.wl:'n Ilm~n.dc(rfltn ~o;J/'~ih~~eUSo: J)~tr.[butloll ot wnter ulIed In IrrlJ;"ntlon"
<br />ect..-e..t.:.. W'('!oI tor mllnklpal a fill I. .., J 9 I ~~ter under Fedp.rnl reclnmatlon proj.
<br />which "'ere lluthnrl7.!'11 l'lUUl<"'f11rent t~ ):I~~' ~Ool!llr~ol'l\Io<'1 pnwl'r I,r!'lllrrtlon. 1111.1 thl' Jfk,''""-
<br />ver!':lll. practice to mnke flllll,!::'fl tor these flurpo; ne . I" Interior II UBUlll, though not uol.
<br />In Nr:br(lf/k/l v. lVllQmfn17 295 U . e!'l nil .,we .
<br />SI'crelnry of thf! Int...rlor W~8 nn In.S,-"! 40. 4:1 (193;)), ""'here one Is!'ue WIl.S whether the
<br />,.blll nlll'.t:'(,:<I. nnd 'We know 1)9 m~H('r /iDsn ? rnrly 10 the enu!;e, the Cnllrt Buld: "The
<br />ft.ulhorlty of thf! Rcelnmntlon Act nil. 0 nw. t lllt the Seeretnr.Y and 1111, n,l;'"rnh. netlnS" by"
<br />prlorltl{.<\ for the Ull!' ot l\.nter from t~ l'i~rrlemi~~ry legh:lntlon, Il'lust obtnln permtt~ Bnd
<br />aprroprlntor or fin .lrr'~ntlon dlstrlcte io II. e dO yomlng In the MRme mnnrll'r ll.B A. private
<br />. no hh;:hf!r thnn thn!;e of W\'omlni: . . . ,~mtvhnndtr thl.! Stnle law. IIliI rl,!::'htl'l can rIse
<br />Court n Aeeonrl time till' Unltl:'d Stat A b I ct}, oW<!l'er. the snme Cl\f'C came b",fore the
<br />SS9. BJtt (1945) I, "be COllrt f1nld' "e nv nl!;' el'll. i:rnnted lenve to Intervene (::I2~ U.S.
<br />proprlnferl waf<'r tn the rIV!!f. . .. . ~~: ~n'fed IS~tteB c1nlms tbnt It own A 011 the lJn:1p'
<br />approprlntlon but frolD Ita underl In . ll(lhC r I: II orc . . . Bald to derive Dot from
<br />thlll eult tree from State control Y. ~ o.w'ljr: Ip :hlCh entltleB It to nil !l.pportlonm!'nt tn
<br />unnPJIroprlnted ""flter of the rtve'r tbe Untfed 'Bet to not stop to determine what rli:'lJts to
<br />W,h,lcb tbe North Platte project Bod tbi!' Kendrlckllpe:(l;na,' hat"b' For tbe wnter rlJ;:'htll on
<br />pi 4Dee with State law Wb tb tb ',lee ns a"'e been oh-t3lned 111 com.
<br />la not IlI1portant." ' e er e., ml~bt have beeQ obtained b1 B'edernl reservation
<br />
<br />As the fOI't>goini:: out,line of t,hese four C:1ses iJHljeates, C01q.{r{'ss has
<br />not. been inact.ive in the enactment of legislation" tfeeting, dIrectly or
<br />indireetly, tho laws of the St"tes dealin~ with the use of water, At
<br />least live major pieces of ler;islation-;in ~d.dition to :' proliferation of
<br />minor acts and of aets dealing WIth IIld,vldual P~O)ects to o~ under-
<br />taken hy FOllornl "I!encies-Imve been enacted durmg t.he period WIth
<br />whiell we. nl'e concP,rned.
<br />Th. first of these five is t.he section 10 of the act of September 19,
<br />18VO," 011 which t.h" Rio GraTlde case turned. This section, after
<br />provj(ling, as t.he Court pointed out, that-
<br />toO :H9 u.s. nt "41.
<br />u Ihld. nt 44 I f.
<br />.. Ct. DOIIJ;:'lnB, J., dl"'lIentlnlif: "[ 8B8Um~ th.t the Untted 8tate! could baTe rtcaIltd It.
<br />grnnt ot Jurl!ldletlon over water rightB, ..."lng, of coune, all ve8ted rlJll'bu. Bat the Uolted
<br />Statf'l\ hnl'l not exprel'll'l11 done 1'10; and we shonld DOt eon.trae anT raw.. ar::hlerlnl that
<br />ftllult lInleflll the purpo8fl of CoolI'ftlll!l ls dear." Ibid. at 41GB.
<br />... IbId. at 441 f.
<br />"'Ibid. ot 444 f.
<br />"' Supra, Dote 28.
<br />
|