WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c. The list of required information for inclusion in the inventories is incomplete. Although definitions are provided for the terms "reserved rights" and "appropriative rights", no definitions are given in the bill for the terms "riparian, littoral" and "overlying" which are mentioned in Section 3 (a) (1). These terms may well have different meanings in different states, or may in- deed be unfamiliar to many private water users and state administrators. In order to provide optimum notice of the types of rights which will be included in the inventory of federal claims, definitions of these terms should be pro- vided in the bill under Section 2 (d). In addition, there is no criteria given in the bill for the determination of the rate of flow which might be claimed for in-stream use. Nor is there any description of useS for which such a claim might be made. As previously noted, the states question the proposition that the federal government is entitled to such uses as part of its reserved rights. But in any event, it would be important to have judicially cognizable criteria established in the bill for measuring the validity and the extent of such claims to in-stream use. D. 7he inclusion of Section 6 in the draft bill is unjustified. Section 6 of the draft proposal provides that: "any Indian or Indian tribe .....hose ownership of his or its lands is no longer restricted by the laws of the United States who claims to be the owner of a right to the use of water based on federal law, and any person claiming to be the owner of a right to the use of water as the successor in interest to an Indian or Indian tribe or to the United States where the claim of right is based on his owner- ship of lands to which a right to the use of water based on a federal law pertained while the lands were in United States or Indian owner- ship, may request the Secretary of the Interior to include the right in the inventory for the state or states in which the lands involved and the point of diversion are situated." The states see little justification for the inclusion of Section 6 in the draft bill. The states' position is that when individuals obtain lands which were previously in tribal ownership, the rights acquired with the lands (in- cluding "reserved" water rights) become subject to provisions of state law, in- cluding the Idws relative to forfeiture, abandonment, beneficial use, etc. The rights obtained by successors in interest to Indian tribes, even if based upon federal law, can be determined through normal state adjudication processes. We see no value in cloaking these rights with a special element of authenticity through their inclusion with the United States claims in an inventory. Use of water by an individual on land severed from a reservation can in no way be construed to be in fulfillment of the purposes for which the lands were originally reserved or withdrawn. E. The establishment of an office in the Department of the Interior for the filing of water riqhts inventories is unnecessary and undesirable. Section 3 (b) requires the Secretary of the Interior to "establish an office in the Department of the Interior for the maintenance of records for all rights (14)