WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

statutes and their judicial interpretation suggested that the acquisition of water rights was entirely a matter of local law. "The states at this point had every reason to feel secure in their ability to legisl~te as they chose in regard to the non-navigable waters within their boundaries. 112 Now, if the drafters arguments are accepted, many of the water rights acquired in reliance upon this ability may be taken and the land thereby turned from farms and orchards to desert without compensation. Especially in the West, it is doubtful that anything in federal-state water law relations has caused more controversy than the "reservation doctrine", and the most onerous feature of the doctrine from the viewpoint of the states is its potential to destroy state created rights without compensation. The draft bill's failure to remove this feature is ~~re evidence that its claimed objectives or "coordination" and "cooperationll with state and private water users are spurious. D. The draft bill, by attempting to settle all future federal water rights immediately, adversely affects the states' ability to reform their water laws. In many states, state water law is ripe for reform, and such reform should be strongly encouraged. Many cornmon-law doctrines are derived from medieval theories of property, and are based on unscientific (and often mythical) views of hydrology. 11any of the court opinions defining water law doctrines are stale, decided in an era of different water needs and priorities. Particularly in eastern states, a substantial portion of state water laws is based on an outmoded assumption of essentially free and unlimited supplies. Many jurisdictions have already adopted legislation to modify long standing water law doctrines~ Others, such as Pennsylvania, are in the process of studying and drafting new water codes~ Even in the absence of such statutory reforms, state courts are increasingly re-examining old decisions in the light of modern realities~ Unfortunately, the proposed bill threatens to seriously impair the ability of states to modify their water law along more rational lines~ The greatest difficulty would arise with respect to riparian and groundwater rights. Reform of existing prior common law doctrines Qay take the form of legislation adopting a comprehensive permit program for future or increased uses~ Typically such legislation provides for the registering of rights vested (that is, actually in use) at the time of the statute's passage. Future riparian or groundwater rights -- to called inchoate rights -- are terminated and new or increased water with- drawals may only be made pursuant to a state permit process. Before legislative reforms could be adopted, however, the United States could complete the inventory required by the proposed bill. In the inventory, the United States claims not only riparian and groundwater rights currently in use, but also included claims for future uses of a stated or underminate amount. By making such a claim for an inchoate right, the United States might be able to finalize its future as well as vested water rights and thus prevent application of subsequent state law reforms to the federal water uses. This problem would be cm~ounded by the inability, after the three year running of the statute of limitations, to challenge the inventoried federal claim even in the 25. Note, Western Water and the Reservation Theory - The Need for a Water Rights Settlement Act, 26 Mont. L. Rev. 199, 203 (1965). (22)