WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2128 which follow the prior appropriation doctrine. Thus, the definition of "appro- priative rights" contained in the proposed bill which includes non-state derived rights is not only intolerably vague and overbroad, but goes beyond the scope of currently recognized federal rights. I. The draft bill's definition of "other rights" is non-specific and overly broad. - In addition to providing for the inventorying of federal reserved water rights and appropriative rights, the proposed bill requires the inventorying of federal claims to "other rights" to the use of water. As defined in Section 2 (a) of the bill, "other rights" means all rights of the United States to the use of w1derground or surface waters, other than reserved or appropriative rightsl which "if owned or claimed by a state, a private person, or another entity within a state, would be valid within the state or states where the water is diverted or put to use by the United States." "Other rights" also includes "any other rights to the use of water, whatever their nature or legal basis. . . with respect to which the United States has administrative, managerial or fiduciary responsi- hili ties, 11 which are derived from the "property clausell of the federal Constitution. The scope of rights potentially covered under the tem "other rights" is thus very broad. Furthemore, it is especially difficult to assess the impact of the bill because of the uncertainty in defining what "rights" the United States holds nnder the "property clause" of the Constitution. In a sense, almost all rights to use water are "property rights. II Indeed, most water rights held under state laws are considered proprietary in nature,16 and, if claimed by the United States, would be deemed to be held pursuant to the property clause. However, some rights or claims are more difficult to classify_ For example, in several states such as Minnesota, no true rights to water use are acquired through state-issued permits. Such permits only give a limited privilege to use water, the ownership of which remains in the state. Such privilege may be revoked or modified at any time in accordance with state law. Under such state laws, it would appear that permit allocations are not rights, and would not be covered under Section 2 (d). Even if the pemit scheme is held to grant a "right" the relation between such permit privileges and the property clause of the Constitution is an open question. Section 2 (d)'s definition of "other rights" is misleadingly simplistic and non-specific. It would essentially allow the federal government to claim a broad set of undefined rights arising from any number of real or imagined legal bases. The proviso limiting the rights claimed to those held under the "property clause" is of dubious utility, and may, in fact, tend to encourage federal agencies to assert all of their questionable claims under the property clause through the inventory provided in the bill. II INVENTORY A. The draft bill includes unquantifiable rights in the inventory. Riparian law gives an owner of land along a waterway a right to make a rea- sonable use of the water therein, so long as such use does not unreasonably affect the water uses of other riparian owners. t1oreover, riparian water rights may change over time and may be affected by new or expanded water needs of other 16. 1 Water and Ilater Rights *R.E. Clark, Ed. Ss 53. (1967). (ll)