|
<br />28
<br />
<br />DEOISIONS PERTIKE]';T TO PROPOS.ED WATER RlGHTS Af::r
<br />
<br />CEClSIONS PERTINENT TO PROPOSED WATER RIGH'fS Af::r
<br />
<br />29
<br />
<br />Tlw..' c<:!'lIlll,,!tNI thp- p,iority (ht(,~ for the projl'ct~ Th~rc \\.t~rp, :1.1.";0 applications
<br />to tll(' :-\tat(':-,; for pl'rTmts to COIl"truct (.~l1ab .~nd flitches. They dt~::icri1Jetl the
<br />In.IHI to !Jt~ ~cf\'\'d. Till) ordt~l's gmlLtill~ tllx appiLc;~tiolL::) lix(~d the tirn/; for COIll~
<br />pldioll of the callal, (or :~Jlplicatioll of ih(~ \\';Lkr to tbe bile!, :Llld for proof oC
<br />appropriation. Indi\'i(lllal wat(~r 1I.<:CiS cont-mc.ted with thf~ Ullitt~d ~t.:\.t('~ for t.he
<br />use of project Wo.tl'T. These cont.racts were latt:r a:-;::;umcd by the irrig:~t.ion di::)~
<br />tricts. Irrign.tion dislril'b snomHtcd proof of beneficial \lse to ilw State allt.hori~
<br />tics on Ill'half of the project w:l.l('T Il,..;crs. The St:lte authoril ies acccp1.cd tlu~t
<br />proof :LIl(} b:"llt'd cleere!':,; l~fl(l eertiFu::n.1i'''\ in favor of the iruliviclun.1 \\:~ter \l:<ers.
<br />TIle cerlillcat(~s 1l:\1lIf!({ n.S :l.JlllrollrbtNs t.he indi\"idll:l.l bndowners. They
<br />dl~::,il!n:~t,:J th~ 1l11111IH,r of n.cres illc1\1ded, the ll,.;Q fOI" which i1w approjlrilLt.ioJl w:~s
<br />made, the :~lllOlUlL of (.he api'ropri;Llioll, ami the priority d;dc.. The COllt.racts
<br />bet-weell the Uni1l'cl Ntatl'!> and the irrigation di.stricts providl'cl1-h:~t after the
<br />stored wn.t.:r W:l.R rpll':l'-;"cl from the re";l:rvoir it was ulldcr th~ control of the
<br />apprnpri:l.tl: Stn.1e ofll"i:lk
<br />All of these stl:pS make plain t.hat those projct:ts were nesig;ned, constrllcted and
<br />comph:ted :~cl'ordill~ to the pattern of tiLlte bw as provided in the H.C't:I:unat.ion
<br />Act. We c:m ~:1\. h(~rl' what was s:lid ill lck('.~ v. Fox, .~U7)m (pp. (H-~)5): "Al.
<br />though t.he (;O\.~~rl1111'~I\t diverted, stored and di;;;tributcd t1w w:lter, the contention
<br />of petit inner that t.hcrphy oWll(.rship of t.he water or water ri::;;ht~ became vested
<br />in thc United St:ltC.... is not '\).cU founded. APlll'opril\tion W:'l.S rn.:ldc not f(Jr t,he
<br />use of the (;o...t.~rllmellt, but, undcr the H.o...:rl:l.ll1;llioll Ad, for the llSC of the hnd-
<br />owners. aUfl bv the terms of the law and of the eOlltr:lct already referred to, the
<br />wnter rig-ht~ !)cr[l.me thc property of the landowners, wholly distinct from the
<br />property right of t.he Government in the irrigation works. "" * The Govern-
<br />ment was :1nd rcmainerl. simply a ~:Jrrier and distributor of the water (ibid.),
<br />'n"ith the right to re('ci\"l~ the !"lllnS st.ipul~t0d in the cant-met,; as rC'im!>ur:o;ement
<br />for the cost of construction :l.Ild a.nllu:11 chargcs for opH:1tion and maintenance
<br />of t.he works.1I
<br />The property right in the water rit;ht is separate :J.nd dist.inC'.t from the prop(:rty
<br />ri!l:ht in the resen.oirs, ditl"h('~ or cana!.s, The water right is appurtenant t.o the
<br />land, the owner of which is t.he appropriator. The watcr right is acquired by
<br />perfecting an appropri:J.tiol1, i. c., by an actual diversion followed by an appli~a-
<br />tion within a rea.sonablc time of the water to a bencfici3lusc. * . * Indeed sedlon
<br />8 of the Reclamation Act provides as we have seen that "the riJ..:ht to the use of
<br />water acquired under t.he provb;ions of thid Act shall he appurtenant to the land
<br />irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the me[lsure, and the limit of the
<br />right-I!
<br />We han thrn a dirC'('tion by Congrc.ss to the Secret:uy of the Interior to pro-
<br />ceed in conformit.\' with State laws in appropriating w:l.ter for irrig~l.tion purpose:3.
<br />We have a compliance wit-h th:1t direction. PurSllant to that procedmc individual
<br />lllndowners have beC'ome the ;lpproprintors of the \mtcr rights, t.he Unitf!d States
<br />being the storer and thc c:uri(:r. We intim:\te no opinion whether a dit~e~ent
<br />prorl~dllre might havc he~n followed so liS 1.0 3Jlpropril\tc and res~n.e to t.he Umted
<br />i::itates [Ill of thC'se t\.:\ter right-so 1\0 sm'h :lttcrnpt \\';'s ll\:\di:l. Though we aSSllme
<br />arguendo thtl.t t.he United States did o\\'n all of the unappl'opriatcd water, the
<br />appropriat.ioJl~ under State law werc made to the in(lh.idll:t1 bndown('rs pursll:1nt
<br />to the procedure which CongrC'ss provided ill the RCc\:Lmation Act.. The rights so
<br />~cq\lircd arc as d(;finite and compll~te 3S if 1.hey werc obhlined by direct ce:~sion
<br />frolll t.he Fedcral GO';f~rnllwnt.. Thus en'!) if wc :1SS11lTW th:\t t.he lTnitcd Sbtes
<br />OWlll'd 1.he Ilnappropri:~t.'-'(I riJ.,::ht.s, t.Il1:Y were HC'luir.-'c! hy the bndown(~rs in the
<br />pr,'ci~e m:Ulll/:r cOllt(:II1Jlbt.~d 1"Y COIl)!;r.',,;.'!. . .
<br />It. i~ lLl"J..:lll:d that. if tit<: right of i.ll" Unit('f! 51.al(':-; 10 tl1l'<;(: \~.:1t(~I" r1~ht::; IR Hot
<br />rCI'ogniz('(!, it~ m:11l:I.!=pnll:nt of the l"e:fh:l':l.I projecH will he jeop.lrJizPI_l. It is
<br />pointed Ollt, f()r (':\;l.lIIjl!c, that. \\'yolllill~ :l.nd ?\'ebra~kn. h:~\'e law::; which r"guhtc
<br />the charges which 1.lie owners of can:1ls or rl'sen.oirs m:LY In:~ke for the u~e of water.
<br />Dllt Ollr decision do~s not ill\'oln: t.hosc m:itt.ers. We do not SlIp;:gl.st th:\t where
<br />COIl"rt'ss hns provided... system of r('gllbt.ion for Fl'rl(:ral projects it must give
<br />wa\.~bcfore .::an incon.<;istent. State sy.stem. We :l.re de:~ling here only with an l'l.lIo-
<br />cation, through the Statl's, of water rights among approprin.tor~. The right~ of
<br />the United States in respl'ct to the stor:1~e of water ure recognIzed.. So me .the
<br />water rights of the hndo.....ncrs. To alloCllte those water ril:!:hts to the UnIted
<br />States would he to disrl'gard the rights of the landowners. To :l.lIocate them to
<br />the Stutes, who represent their citizens parens patriae in this procee~ing, in no wise
<br />interferes with the: ownership and opemtion by the Unitcd St.~tes of Its storage and
<br />powerplants, works, nnd fucilities. Thus thc question of the ownership by the
<br />Unitl'd St:l.tcs of unappropri:l.ted. water is largely academic gO far as the Darrow
<br />issll('s of this l'nsp :lre concerned (pp. 612-GlG),
<br />
<br />2. Alabama v, Texas ct ai, (347 U, S, 272 (1904)) should he. notcd in
<br />
<br />conne.ct,lon With (,he. powe.r to dispose of tllC propert,;- of tllC United
<br />
<br />Stat.es. PCI' ell rinm t}ll~ Court said:
<br />
<br />The mol.io.l1s fo~ le~\"e ~o file; th~se com[Jl.aints o.re denied. Article: IV, section 3,
<br />~l:lu."e 2,. Unll.:~1 States COIl:<;tltlltlOll, Un:fcd Slates \". Graliol (J-l Pet. 52(;, [j~7):
<br />[.he: ~o~,?,r of ~-,ong.re8::l to d,:,pose?f .::ally k~lH~ of 'propcr~y hc]on.e-illg to thc United
<br />:;t:lr(~ I::; ve~led 1n Con~ress wlt.hout llll1llatlOn." Uniled Slale.~ v. jl[idu'csl
<br />OIL C07ll"!Ja:l~ (23/;.U. ~., 4.5U, ~7.f): "For it Illl!st he b~rnc in 1.11illd that Congress
<br />not ollly Il.lS a leg,lsl~t.l\e po\\e.r over l.he pllblte dom:lltl, hut It. :1.lso eXl.fCi.o;I:S the
<br />~o:\(;l's.~f ~h.c p.l'~l.ll1'letor therein. .COllp:I"l~:-iS '1!1:l:: de:l! with sHeh land::; preci,o;(.ly
<br />as .1. pn\ :It: lIldlVldwll m:l.y rle:d With Ill!:. f:trmlllg propert,\'. It. m:\\" ~('I! or \\'ith~
<br />h,old t.h~r;; lr~m S;l~~.' qal/ljil'l.d \'. United Slalcs, (Ill7 u. 8. ,j2.1); Li{Jht \", Um'led
<br />~ta~c.~ (__0 11. f? ,),3(;). Untted Stale.<; v. San J<'TrJ.ncIsco (310 U, ~. tG, 2n-:m):
<br />1~1 t1C1~ 4, s~'ct~on 3, c1.~U:5e 2 of the COllstitll~ion provide..:; ih:~t 'The Congre3:J
<br />sh:tll h:l.Ve I o~ er t.? rh:-pose of and mnke :l.!( needful Hulc-:; and Hl'g:lIla.tions
<br />rbr:(;ct.lI:~ th,e .TcrntoI"Y. and other Propcrt:,-' belonging to the Uniterl. St:ltes.'
<br />:rile p~".er O\Cl the public land thus entrusted to Conl;!'l.!SS is \\.it.hoUl limitnt.ions.
<br />.And It,IS Ilot for the courrs t.o say how that trllst sh:l1! be n.dl1lilli:"tered. Thnt
<br />~~ f.u,'" ~~nb.~.r:."3 to determine..' " . United Slales .... Calif ofilia (30~ lJ. S. 19, :?7):
<br />,\\c h,l\e.~;'J.\d. th:1t the cunstltutlOnal power of Con~rc~s (under article 1\' .~c 3
<br />e aus(: 2) I~ 'Wlthollt limitation, U7liled Slates v.. San Francisco (310 U' S .16'
<br />?g-.:~O" (pp. 273-2i 4). . ,. .'
<br />
<br />F. PHOSPECTIVE ADOPTIOX BY CO~GRESS OF STATE L..\\....S
<br />
<br />A sigll.ifi(,;1.]~t opinion of the Supreme Court has oCl'n dclin~red since
<br />~he hC'nrmgs ltl \rn.]~c-h and JUllC 19;)(3 on the Ihl'n~tt bill. The issue
<br />l~ t1lltt "'''<:,.'0: S, v, Sharpnack (335 U, S, 2S6 (I~5S)), we.s
<br />"he~ther the ,\'SlIllll"tIVC Cnm,'s Aet, of 1945 (IS {J, S. C. 13) ,,'as
<br />c.o.n~~.ltllt.lollnl Illsofar as It made n.pplica.hlc to n. FedC'ral endn.vc tbGSC
<br />crullllln.lla.\\.s of the St~l.tc, in which the encln.ve WfiS situated enacted
<br />SUhsl'qUr-llt to ] 048. '
<br />, The Assimilativc Crimes Act hns its roots in enrly Inw (4 Stnt, 11;;),
<br />\\ lllch \~.;:ts ftJl~O\n~d llY a ~cl'les of reTlc',\.:1.l net.s. Ho\\"c\'I.:1", in nnS\\-erillO'
<br />fL quest.I011.' \\"lthollt hl~ltl'lng argnments, that arose in connect.ion with
<br />flY~.~)SCClll:101l of an oITcl~seor bUl'gb,ry,-.undcr New York skttlltory bw,
<br />\\h!dI hft.l~ h('ell commltt.ed l!T1 the l'cdcn11 (,l1cl.n'c at 'Y('st. Point
<br />CllId JlIst.lce \hrshnll h,.d s1",l th"t the openltive force of the Fedemi
<br />stntllte was t(~ bc llllllt,ed to t,lw St.,.t,e Ill\\'S in force nt the dnte of its
<br />enn);t,rnl"blt (~I. 8, v. Paul, 6 Pet.. 141, H2 (lS:l2), See "bo U. S,
<br />Y. .ama y, ,:1 F, 20,.:n (lSO:J)).
<br />Congn'5s,_1Il CI1n.ct.lng the criminal code into posith'o In.\\" in 1918
<br />(6~ S.t.at. 68:)), Illn.de .St:ltc crimillfl.llnws Hin force at the ti'me of sll~b
<br />[~rllYlIllnIJ net or oll"tls;;lOn" l1.ppli(,llhlc, in the uhs,c,ncc of eont.l'ollillO'
<br />} cd(:ml sti\.t.lll,t's. .An 1Il1,f~nt. tluls to mllke future ehall!.::f:s or Stil.t.(~ b\~
<br />ap,P,ll("a.llb~ :d;-:o \\.as r.lt'ad)' st.n.lt'(l ill t.he n~\'ist,l"s 1l01:(~ to sl'el,ion 1:3
<br />J!ln 1.lllport.alwc (~f t.lw Shal'pllaek di~ri:-;jon is JllnQ"llifi(~d ll\' t.he fnet
<br />t,lmt.. ,enllulIfLI la~\' ]~ n.(w.ays st.l:ict.ly cOllstnLl:d, LN c\.crLh~l'less, t.hc
<br />SUpl e~llc qo.urt, 111 llllc wlth carher precedents npplyin1r St.at.e law in
<br />the diSpOSItIOn of Federal propertv (Butte City Water ~ Co v Raker
<br />196 U. ~, 119 (1905)), nnd III Federal fields of regulatory powc;
<br />(Conley v. Board oj lI'ardens oj the Port oj Philadelphia, 13 Itow. 299
<br />(lS51)) has resolved the ',ssues of power in fllvor of Congress by sus-
<br />tl1.l~lln~ pro~pp-ct.lve adoptIOn of State law. . .
<br />.se('.tlo~. .:>35 of the 'I'eXil.S Crin~inll.l Code, under which Sharpllfl,ck
<br />~as COl'lCte.rl, !'lld been enactcd III 1900, two yeMs nfter the F"der~1
<br />SSIIlll atlve Cruues Act of 1945. Said Justice Burton for the mujority:
<br />
<br />..
<br />
|