WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2127 frame of reference when competing with federally reserved rights regardless of the expectations of landowners or established state law in the area. Furthermore, the government could make use of the federal reserved rights irrespective of whether the particular use or amount would be consistent with the limitations imposed by state law. More importantly, if government contentions were accepted, the reserved right would be fully transferable perhaps even out of the watershed or out of the state, because the reserved right is not merely a usufruct (right to use) as is a riparian right but rather is based upon a theory of physical ownership by the government. In most cases, the federal government will have riparian rights to the extent any private land owner would have them; moreover, the states cannot impede the federal government from proper exercise of its powers and from obtaining whatever amount of water is necessary for that exercise, provided that government compensates holders of vested rights thereby impaired. G. The draft bill contemplates federal reserved rights claims for in-stream uses. The draft bill would allow the government to claim reserved rights for in- stream use. Section 3 (a) (6) provides for quantification of water encompassed by a right in terms of the rate of flow to be maintained in the case of rights for in-stream use. As previously noted, in the states' view it is unreasonable and contrary to the fundamental justification for the reservation doctrine to conclude that sufficient water is reserved for any use of water which goes reasonably to the fulfillment of the purposes of the reservation regardless of the fact that the use was never contemplated by the government at the time of the withdrawal. As far as can be determined, there is no evidence that the government ever con- templated in-stream uses for the fulfillment of any purposes clearly designated or fairly implied in the legislation authorizing reservations of the public domain. For example, in the case of the national forest reserves, the legislative history makes clear that the purpose of these reservations was timber management and water- shed protection, nothing more.IS Not only were minimum stream flows not discussed, but could not be considered as necessary to fulfill those purposes. Thus, allowing the government now to claim in-stream uses for aesthetic or other pusposes goes beyond the proper scope of the reservation doctrine as defined in the case law. H. The draft bill creates a class of "appropriative" rights not recognized by state law. .' Section 2 (c) of the proposed bill defines federal claims to appropriative rights as follows: "(c) 'Appropriative right' means a right of the United States to use water required initially by it or by another by following 15. See, i.e., Congressional Record of the Senate, May 6, 1897, 909-917; Con- gressional Record of the House, May 10, 1897, 966; Congressional Record of the House, June 1, 1897, 1399. (9)