|
<br />22
<br />
<br />DEOIS1ONS PERTINENT TO PROPOSED WATEIR RIGHTS Acr!
<br />
<br />DECISIONS PERTINENT TO PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS Acr!
<br />
<br />23
<br />
<br />impor1~ th~t the water rights belong to another than the lienor, that is to 5:1.y, to
<br />the landowner.
<br />"The Fl'f\p.r:tl Go\"crnm('nt., as owner of the pllblic domaill, had the power to
<br />di~po~c of the land and w:\t.er compo:-iing it lo:!;dhcr or BCJl~rutdy; and hy the
<br />Des('rl J.:lIul Act of Ifi77 (ch. 107, l!) ::itat. 3(7), if not bdorc, COll~reS:1 had
<br />6C....Cff'd the land :\Ild w~tcrH constit.utinl!: thl: puhlic dom:dn :l.nd c8t.:l.hlishcd the
<br />rille that for the future Ow bnds shoul<fhc pat.cnLC'd scpnrnl('ly. Acquisition of
<br />the Governmt~nt tiUe to 1\ parcel of land W:L~ not to curry wit.h it a water riJ.l;ht;
<br />but :llllionll:\Vi~:),hlc wnlers were reserved for t.he use of the public under the laws
<br />of the variu1ls arid~lalld St:\tcs. California POlt'CT Co. v. !3rflver Cemenf Co. (~a5
<br />U. S. 1-12, Hi:'::). AmI in thosc Slates, g;l~l1(:r:l.lly, inclndinl-:" the Stn.tc of Wa~hing-
<br />tOil, it JUlIK has been established hw tha.t. t.}H; ril;ht t.o thp. Ilse of watp.r ClUJ be
<br />acquired only by prior ~pproJlriat.ion for no bt:ncficiall.l~c; and that such rip;ht when
<br />thlls obt:tillcrl is :1 propL'rt.y rij!;ht., which, whcn nC(]lIirp.d for irrip:nt,ion, hecomes,
<br />by State law and here hy exprl':Ss provision of t.he H.cclamation Act ~s well, part
<br />alld pnrcd of t.he laud upon which it is applied (pp. IH-06).
<br />3, .U, S, v. Hin Gmnde Irrignt.ion Compnny (174 U. S. G90 (1899)):
<br />In 1897 the ALtorney Gelleml tiled a eomplainL agllinst the Rio Grunde
<br />IrriO'ruLion Co. to rest.ruin it from constructing fL dmll across the Rio
<br />Gnl~l(lc at. Elephant. But.tc and appropril1ting the '....n.tcrs for pur-
<br />pos('s of irrigation. The United Stutes alleged t.hat t.he impounding
<br />of the waters would seriously rest.rict t.he navigable cnpn.city of the
<br />river contmry to Lhe rights of the United State3 ,md to treaty ohliga-
<br />tions, lL wns nlso denied l.hat tile eonstruction or Lhis dam was
<br />authorized by law. The eompany contended LhaL aets of Congress
<br />did o.utlwrize cOllst.ruetioll.
<br />The Suprcme COUl't stated thut the Rio Gl'flnde within the limits of
<br />New ~-Iexjco obviouslv was not n. stream which in its ordinary condi-
<br />tion carried trade nnl travel, the ordinary flow of water being insuffi-
<br />cirnt for regulnr transportation. IIowever, it observed that if waters
<br />of a nn.vig:nble strenm were dcpleterl fit the sources, navigabilit.y in
<br />the lower pnrls or the river thereby would be destroyed. The eourt
<br />stntC'd thnt it was HOt. necessary to consider the treaty stipuln.tions
<br />between the United St:ltcs and ~\'[exieo. The obligaLion or the United
<br />States, it said, to preserve for its own cit.izens the navigability of its
<br />nnviga ble waters WfiS cCl'toinly fiS gret1.t os finy obligation arising by
<br />treuty or intenl"tional Inw. lL noted that the unCjuest,ioned rule of
<br />the c'ommon law WflS that every ripariun owner wos entitled to the
<br />'continued natural flow of the stream but it noted also that this rule
<br />could be ehnnged by a Slute subjeet to two limitntions:
<br />(1) In the nbsence or specific. .wthority from Congress a State
<br />could not bv its legislntion destroy the right of the United States 8.S
<br />tue owner 0'[ lands bordering on n. strcfiln to the continued flow of its
<br />wat.cl'S, so rar ut leust fiS might be neeessary for the beneficial uses of
<br />the Government property,
<br />(~) A State is limited by the superior power of the Federal Govern-
<br />ment. to secure the uninterrupted navigability of all nn.vignble streams.
<br />Power of the State to thus legislate for tbe interests of its own
<br />citizens was conceded until in some wny Congress asserted its superior
<br />power, The question hcrc was whether the 1866 act of Congress
<br />permitted this Stllte legislation.
<br />The Supreme CourL held thllt the 1866 law, IlS amended, formed
<br />no basis for inferring that Congress intended to releuse its control over
<br />the navigable strellms and to grant the right to appropriat8 the waters
<br />
<br />of such rivers to slIell all extent as to destroy the navigability. Said
<br />
<br />the CourL (p, 70G),
<br />
<br />'" * . To hold ih:~t COllgrC':-i~, by these ncts, meant to conf~r upon anv Sta.te
<br />the rit.\"ht 10 :l.pprupri:l.te nl! the watt'rl'l of the tributan' strCll.1I1!" whieh IlnIte into
<br />a n:l.vigable W:1.t.cn:Ollrse. find so destroy the n:1.vi~abiiil\' of th:Lt watercourse in
<br />derop;n.tioll of the inter..:si:i of nU 1hc people of the United States is tl. const.ruction
<br />which cn.lllloL be tolerated .. '" *. '
<br />
<br />The COllrt furl.her said tlll,t seetion lO of the net of September 19,
<br />
<br />ISDO (26 Stut. 454), prohibited t.he erell.tion of lln obst,ruct.ioll, "not
<br />
<br />nfIlrmotivdy nllthorized by law," to t.llC 111.l\-ig:tble r:tp:leit.y of nIlY
<br />
<br />waters of whi('.1I t.he United States Jwd jllrisdic't.ion. "\\,h:1LCYCr muy
<br />
<br />have b('(~n t.he rights acquired undcr C'll.rlicr lltwR with respect. to use
<br />
<br />of wfiters from tile Hio Grallde, t.his 1890 net \\':\S hl'id ro hayc effec-
<br />
<br />tivcly:" prohihitc~l !" State from interfering with the navigability of
<br />
<br />the fiver hy blllldltlg .n. dam unless specificnlly aut.horized by fin nct
<br />
<br />of C<;>ngl'css. Ac~ordlll:,d>', t!lC building of the dnrn was enjoined.
<br />
<br />The Import of t.llls acclslOll IS st.llted l)v j\fr. Justice Sutllerll1TlJ in
<br />
<br />Power Co, v. Cement Co. (supm, pp, ]58-]59), Subject to the ex-
<br />
<br />cept.101l lloted, he sma, HIe Court still recoO'Ilizcd nnd 11SS0n t,ed to the
<br />
<br />appropriat.ion of water under the nets of ISGG ulld 1877 in eontra,.en-
<br />
<br />tion of the eommon law rllle, The following quotlltions indieate l.he
<br />
<br />reasonmg of the Court.:
<br />
<br />Although this power of changing the common b.w TIlle as to streams within
<br />its dor:ninion .ulld()\Ibte~ll'y IwJongs to f'ach State, yet two limitlltiOlls must be
<br />recognIzed:. FIrst: t.h::t 11l the ahsence of specific authority (rom Congre.5s 11 State
<br />call1lot by Its !cgJ."ln.tlOll destroy the right of the Unitcrl St:.l.tC3, as the Qwtwr of
<br />lands uord(:ring; on fl. stream, to the continlled How of its waters; so fur at least
<br />fiS m~lY. be. n~ce".sary for the b~lIe6ci:l1 tl"e:s of the Government property. ~0('ond,
<br />th~t It l.~ hllutcd hy the Sllpenor power of the Gcneral GO\'crllll1€'nt to ::iecure the
<br />unI!'tcrrl!ptcd na\'igahilit.y of fill nn.yigahle stream::i within the limits of the
<br />Un]tc~1 States. In other \\'orrls, the jllrisdi~.tion of the GeJlC'rnl Coyernment
<br />over ,lntnr~tf1tc commerce and its l1:\tur:il highways vests in that Goyernment
<br />the TIght to take all l1l'edcd mea:lllrcs to preserve the n:wigabilit.y of the IHl.vigable
<br />watcrcours('~ of t.he country even against any St.ute action. It is true thl're hase
<br />been {n~9uent d~~isi~ns recognizing the PO\\'ef of the State, in the ab~en('e of
<br />c.ol1.gres~lOllfll IC'gl",l:1tlOn, to !ls:mme ~ontrol of e....en n:1.\"igahle waters within its
<br />limIts to the cX~(,Jlt of crc:l.tll1g dams, booms, bridges, and other mA.tters which
<br />opemte .as ob5trudi~)l1s to nay!gabili.ty. The power of the Statf' to thllS legi::;la.te
<br />for the _lI1tere"its.of ItS own CitIzens IS conceded, flud llntil in some W3\' Cong-rcss
<br />asserts ltS sllpenor po~\'er an(~ t~le nel.:essity of preserving the genera! Intere~ts of
<br />the peopl~ of :'1.11 the Stn:tes, lt ]S a~sull1ed ths.t State H.ction, alt.hough im'olving
<br />tempomrily an obstructIOn to the free navigability of a strenm, is not subject
<br />to challengc * * *.
<br />
<br />. AII.this ,Procceds upon the thought thn.t the nonaction of Congress carries with
<br />It an Implied :l.s.5t:nt to the fiction taken bv the State,
<br />. Notwithstanding the unCjllestio!lcd rule. of the common lfl.w in rc-ferencc to the
<br />rJg~t of EL lower ripu.rirm proprietor to insist upon thl? contilluoll~ flow of the str('am
<br />as It \...:a~, and although there hA.~ been in all the Western Stll.tes an adoption or
<br />r~~o.gl1l~loll of tl~e con1T;,on In.w, It was curly devcloped in thdr hi~tory that t.he
<br />mll1lng Jnch:stry tn certalll Shtes, the r(;clilll1~tion of a.rid In.nds in others comnc.lIed
<br />a departure from ~h~ common-l:nv rule, and justified an appropri:1.tjo~ of flowing
<br />waters both for mmmg purposes nnd for the re:e!fl.m:1.tion of arid limds nnd there
<br />h~lS come to be recognize.d in tho~e Statl?s, by custom and by State legislation. a
<br />d.lfferent ru1c:--a rule whIch. permits, under ccrt.9.in circumst:mccs, the llppropria-
<br />tlOJ?: of the v.::tters of EL flowmg stream for other than domestic pllrposes. So far
<br />a:; .~hose rules have only .n l~cal significance! and affect only questions between
<br />cltlzens of the State, nothmg IS presented which calls for any consideration bv the
<br />Federal courts. In 1866 Congress passed the act of July 26 1866 (cb. 262 sec. 9
<br />14 Stat. 253; Rev. Stat. sec. 2339): 'J J
<br />
|