WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

attorney take6? Ir2 ~si tion that uses of when the reservation was established are so long as they are reasonably necessary reservation. 7 water which may not have been contemplated properly included in the reserved right or appropriate for the purposes of the This view also seems to ingnore the fnndamental justification for applying the doctrine - that the government intended to reserve federal water rights for use on the withdrawn lands. If this justification is recognized, then it follows that the government contemplated the uses for which the water was necessary. Correspondingly, in such cases, the government is deemed to have reserved water rights sufficient to facilitate these uses. Extending the doctrine to include uses not contemplated when the reservation was established thus conflicts with the rationale underlying the doctrine. Where the government has evidenced an intention to reserve water for use on withdrawn land, it is fair to impute to the government the intention to provide water for reasonably forseeable uses to facilitate the purposes of the reservation. However, it is not reasonable to conclude that sufficient water is reserved for any use of water which goes reason- ably to the fulfillment of the purposes of the reservation, regardless of the fact that the use was never contemplated by the government. While the proposed bill contains a provision limiting the quantity of water encompassed by a reserved right to that necessary for purposes within the clearly expressed or implied intent of the governmental order or statute upon which the reservation of the right is predicated, it contains no limitation on the per- missable uses of such water. It would thus allow the open ended authorization proposed by the government, which as indicated above, is not consistent with the basic justification for the doctrine. Furthermore, such an open ended rule can only accommodate the tendency of federal officials and agencies to make grandiose claims in the inventories to be made under the provisions of the proposed bill, and thus unnecessarily becloud titles to private water rights and perhaps deter development even more than the present uncertainties. C. The draft bill is ambiguous as to the water sources to which.reserved rights pertain and the lands on which reserved waters may be used. The Justice Department proposal defines "reserved right" as "a right of the United States to use water upon or adjacent to the reserved or withdrawn lands II It is not clear what the bill contemplates by the term "adjacent", or whether reserved waters could be used on lands other than those upon which the reserved right is predicated. These issues have also not been decided by the cases~ Once again, however, the federal position seems to be that these issues are settled. For example, one government attorney argues that there is no legal basis for any limitation on reserved.right3 to the watershed in which the government 7. D.R. Warner, Federal Reserved Water Rights & Their Relationship to Appropriative Rights in the Western States, 15 Rocky Mtll. Min. Law Insti. 399, 408-10 (1969). The "purposes of the reservation II are the reasons deemed to be behind the federal withdrawal, such, as in the case of national forest lands, timber management and watershed protection~ The permissable uses are those to which reserved water may legitimately be put to facilitate the reservation's purposes. (5)