|
<br />26
<br />
<br />DEClSIONS PEIlTJN.ENT TO PROPOSED WATER RIGHTS Am
<br />
<br />DECISWNS PERTINE1'."T TO PIlOPOSE1l WATER RIGHTS Am
<br />
<br />27
<br />
<br />E. CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES TO UNAPPROPRIATED 'WATER
<br />
<br />UniLr(l Sln.i,(~s eit,illg Ic!.:rR v. Fox, supra. The \\"u1.('1" rig-ht::; bl'C:1mO
<br />
<br />the prOIH'rt,:v of {.he landowners and were \,"hollv dist.ind. from t,he
<br />
<br />GOvPfllllwnt nWlwrs]lip of {,he irrign,t.ioll '\'orks.~ TJ\{~ GovrTlllllrnt
<br />
<br />was and J'('lIll1.illcd simply 3 carrier :LIld (list.riIHlt,ol' of wak/". ~'\ccor(l-
<br />
<br />ingly, sr~id the Court., {'ven if it assumeu t,llnt the United Stn.t.es O'\'Il(~d
<br />
<br />the 111\fLpproprifl.tcd rights, they were nCfluired by tJw lll.ndowlJcrs in
<br />
<br />precisc'Iy t.lle manner cont.empll1tr.d hy Congress. The question of
<br />
<br />oWlll~rshjp by t.he Unit.PIl States of nonexisteTlt UlJl1ppl'opriutl'/1 Wil.t,or
<br />
<br />therdort: wns hC'l(l to be largely academic.
<br />
<br />With respect 1:0 this type of inlerstat,e eontroversy, the Supreme
<br />
<br />Court clearly indicated t,hat it did uot, favor a liti"ious solution which
<br />
<br />it sniu is awkward .(1,r\(1 unslll.isrn.ct,ory. Such c~nl.rovor!?-y, said thl)
<br />
<br />COUft, mn)' u pproprrntely be cOIllyosed by Hegot ia.t.ion fl-nd agreement
<br />
<br />pursuant to t,he eompact clause 0 the lledeml Constit ution,
<br />
<br />011 claims to lI11uppropriated wat.ers, the Court said:
<br />
<br />* * * The Unit.ed States claims t.hat it owns all the un:J.ppropriated water in
<br />the river. It nrguC's tJut it o.....ned the then unllppropriated watl'r at the time it
<br />a~qliir~d w:\t~r rights by n.pproprbtion for the Korth Pl:1.ttc projvct :\nd the
<br />hendrlCk proJect, Its b:1Sic rights fire therefore s:J.id to derive not from appropri-
<br />ation but from it.s underlying ownership which entit.lcs it to rm :\rrortionmcnt in
<br />this suit free from State control. The argument is that the United Stntf'-3 :l.C-
<br />quired the origin:\l o.....nership of fill rights in the water as weB as the lands in the
<br />North Platte Basin by cessions from France, Sp:o.in, nnd :\lexico in lS0:3, 1819,
<br />and 1848, and by agreement with Texrls in 1850. It S:1.\"S it still owns those-
<br />rights in W:lter to wb:l.tcver extent it has not disposed of them. An extensi\'C'
<br />review of }'ederal water legislntioll :l.ppiic:lhle to the Plntie lliver nfl.sin is m:1de
<br />bcginnin,c: with ~,hc :lC~ or July 26, 18GG (14 St:lt. 251), the act of Jul). 0.1870 (16-
<br />Stat.. 217) and II1Cllldln); the Desert Ln.nd Law (:J.ct of :\larch 3, 1877 (10 8t:;.t.
<br />377) und the Reclamation ..\ct of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 3881. But we do not
<br />stop to determine .....hat rights to una.ppropriatcd water of the river the United
<br />St:~tc~ m:\y have, For the wMer right.s 011 which t.he Korth PbUe project and
<br />tP;c l"::endrick p~ojcct rcs'~ h:\\'c b{';~n obbined in comp~ianc(: with St::~tc b.w.
<br />'; he:ther they might h:tve bccn obtained by Fcdera I reservation is not. import.ant.
<br />Nor, as we shall see, is it import:mt to the dccree to be cntered in t.his crt~e that
<br />there mn.~. be un:lppropriated water to which the united St;\t.f'S may in the future
<br />asscrt right.s throuj,:"h the m:\chincr,'{ of State Jawor otherwbe.
<br />~hc De:"crt Land Act "eff~~t('d a. severance of all wa.tprs npon the public do--
<br />main, !lot thcrdo{urc appropnated, {r~m the lnnd itself" C(Jlifnrnia Ort'g(W Power
<br />Co. \". J~I~(H.'('r Portland CCtI/(?ll{ Co. (20;.1 U. S. 142, J5SJ. It extellded the Ti~ht of
<br />appropriatIOn Lo AllY decla.r3.lIt who reclnimed dc.-;;crt lalld find provided "all sllr-
<br />plus Wl\tcr over fl.llfi above .';llch actual n.ppropri:ttion and lise, to!.:ether .....ith the
<br />water of alll.akcs, ri\.ers, and .other sOllrcc~ of watcr supply upon the public Ia.nds
<br />and not ~la\"lg~ld.e !:>h!lll rCll~:l..1n aud be held free for the appropriation and use of
<br />t~e pll!~l]c {~r Irngatlon, milling, [\nd mnuufacturing; purpo~e~ s\\hject to existing
<br />TJ~~lt.:;. (See Ickal v. Fo~ 300 U, S. 82, DSj Brush v. Commissioner 30U U. S.
<br />35_, 3G7).
<br />
<br />Seetioll 8 of t,he !leclam.ation Art provided: "That Bothing; in this Ac~ ~llnll be
<br />COllstrlled fL."; nfTectlJl~,I)l" .1Iltclld('d t.o nfTl'ct or to ill o.ny \ray illlel'[t~rc \dtll the
<br />In~\.", o.f allY Sb\t.c or Ie.rn.to:y r~latitlg to t.he cOlttrol, nl,pTtJprilLLiolJ, IL':;C, or dis-
<br />tTlllll~,IOIl of water w::ed II: lrn..L;atlOll,?r nllY ve:;tcd rihhL :.tecplircd tl:ercllndcr, alld
<br />~he f)crrcln:!f nf.the Intenor, m crlrrYln;'1 out th~ provisions of this .lct, shall proacd
<br />m confo;t1I1!Y wtth sllch laws, and nothing herein shall in nn)' way affect allY right
<br />of any State ~r of the Fedcml G?\'crnment or of any landowner, appropriator, or
<br />user uf wa~er In, to, or from nny mt.er.:l~t.e stream or the waters thcrl.'of: Provided,
<br />That lhe n(Jht lo lhe use .of .waler acq/llred wlt!rr th~ provisions of this Act shall be
<br />appurtcnf!nt. to the Ul!ld Trrl(Jalcd, and benefiCIal use shall be the basis, the measure-
<br />and lh!'. hULlt nf the Tlghi." [Italics added.]
<br />,The Secrd:\ry of. the Int.erior purSutl.nt to section 3 of the Recl:lm:J.tion Act
<br />Withdrew ~rom puLhc entry cl'rt:\in pub.1ic lands in N<;bw$ka llnu \Vyomin~ which
<br />were reqUlr~d {or thc North Platte proJcct Gnd the J\:('ndrick project. lnitiation
<br />o( both proJects was accompanied by filings made pursuant to section 8 in the
<br />nsmc of .the Secrctnry of the Interior (or and on behn.lf of the United Statl?.::l.
<br />Those filmgs were accepted by the State officials as adequate und~>r Ststo la".~
<br />
<br />whose employ('('s worked only on hoareI ships in the nll.vign.hle wat.ers of
<br />P\1gct, ~O\ln.J, could hn compdlf'cl t.o eonLrihutc t.o the n.cc:idpnl. fund
<br />prOVill(~d for hy the 'Vorkmen's COIl}pcnsation Act or 'Vu.shillgtOll.
<br />The 8L11.Le mfLinLll.inCll t.hat, t.he objediolls poinLcd out in tlte l~nicker-
<br />bocker case l\fI.u ueen relUoved by C(lIl~rcss in the act of Junc 10, 1022
<br />(42 Stn.t. r.:\4). The Washin~ton SLMe Supremc Com I. ruled otuer-
<br />wisc u.nd it wn.s nffirmcd by thc Unitrd Stfttes Supreme Court.
<br />As in the [{1l1ckcrboc1.-er cn.se, the United Stutes Supreme Court, in
<br />elTect, hcld tltat urtiele III, section 2, of the ConstiLution of the
<br />United SLut.es uot nuly ga,'e the Fedeml Governmcut supreme pOlVer
<br />over mnrit.imc nfTuirs, hut that it dcnicu power in the Stutes to legis-
<br />late in this field, Saill ~Ir. Justice l\IcReynolds for the majority:
<br />This cause presents [\ situation where there was no o.ttempt to prescrihe gc:nernl
<br />rules. On the contmry, the m~nifC'st pllrpose w:!.s to permit fl,ny Stat.e to alter
<br />the maritime law und therehy int.roduce cOllflir.tin~ ref1uirements. To prevent
<br />this result the Const.itution adopt.ed t.he law of the sen. lls the measure of maritime
<br />rights and ohligation8. The confusion and diflieulty, if \"Cssc1s were compellea
<br />to comply with the local statutes at every port, are not dWicult to sec. Of
<br />COurse, some within the Sti\tes may prefer local rules; but t.he Union was formed
<br />with the ....ery definite design of freeinp; ma.ritime commerce from intolerable
<br />restrictipns incident to such control. The subject is national. Local int,erest:1-
<br />must ,yield to the common welf:1Te. The Constitution is supreme (p. 228).
<br />These art.icle III (judiciul power) cases have been noted for the
<br />purpose of distinguishing the commerce and property cluuse decisions.
<br />
<br />L Nebraska v. IVyoming (325 U. S, 589 (1945)), was an ori;:inal
<br />suit invoh'ing the watcrs of the North Platte Rivcr, the dependable'
<br />natnm! flow of which hud long been o,"erappropriatcd during the
<br />irrigat.ion season. .Nebrnska clnimed thnt certftin diversions violated
<br />the'" rule of priority. lloth St.ates, howcvcr, asked for an equitable
<br />app:ortionmcnt. .
<br />The factnnl situation is not import.ant in t.his insto.nce, The de-
<br />cision, in effect, enunc.ia.ted the principle of equitable apportionment
<br />among approprio.tion Stl\tes llnd said thnt'the principle did not require
<br />a liteml applieation of the priority rule as applied in Wyoming v.
<br />Colorado (259 U. S. 419 (1922)), Of interest iu connection with
<br />F. P. C. v. Orevon was the elaim of I,he Unitcd Sto.tes to all unappro-
<br />printed waters. Tracing its o\..~nership from the cC"ssions by FrancE',
<br />Spain, and Mexico in 1803, 1819, and 1848, and by agreemenL with
<br />Texas in 18;;0 it clllimed ownership of these waters to whatever
<br />extont it had not di"posecl of thcm,
<br />The Supreme Court rde1'l'od to the Desert Lnnd ,\0.1. nnd the fnct
<br />that in Power Co. v. Cement Co., supra, it had lwld that the act
<br />effected a severancc of all wllters upon the public donu,in, not (,hereto-
<br />fore approprio.ted, from the land itself, and extended the ri~ht of
<br />approprintion to any declarant who rcclaimcd desert land. The Ilct
<br />further provided thllt, o.ll surplus water ovcr o.nd ahnve such actual
<br />appropriation and use, togC'ther with the watcr of aIllake:s, rivers, and
<br />other sources upon the puhlic lanus and not navigll.hle should rc-nlain
<br />and be held frce for the appropriation and use of the public for irril'"-
<br />tion, mining, &nd manufacturing purposes, but subject to existmg
<br />rights. Diversion, storage, and distribution of water thereafter by
<br />the Government, it said, did not transfer these water rights t<:> the
<br />
|