WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2134 light of modifications through the state law under which the United States pur- portedly claims its right. Nowhere in the bill does the federal government commit itself to comply with subsequently adopted state water right registration or permit legislation. Hence, by means of the proposed inventory, the United States could accomplish what no other water user may do; that is, fix the law applicable to its future uses and settle its future claims under current doctrines. This potential to hinder or impair state efforts to reform their water laws is one of the serious drawbacks of the federal proposal. E. The draft bill would provide no finality of reserved water riqhts because it allows for declaration of additional purposes, publication of supplemental inventories, and future reservations of water. A major benefit of a bill inventorying and quantifying federal reserved rights claims would presumably be to bring finality and certainty to such claims and thus end the deterrent to future planning and development caused by their threat to give turn-of-the-century priorities to new federal uses that can take water from currently valuable uses established pursuant to state law without paying compensation. This potential benefit, however, is completely negated by the provisions of Section 3 te) and Section 4 (b) of the proposed legislation. Section 3 le) provides for "supplemental inventories" containing claimed rights IIcoming into existence II since the preparation of the inventory and any "changes" or "corrections" to previously inventoried rights. Section 4 (b) provides that the quantification in the inventory of a reserved right may later be set aside by Congress declaring that a greater amount of water shall be claimed under the reserved right. Section 4 <b) also provides for the declaration of "additional purposesll for the reservation or withdrawal. In the first place, with respect to the provision allowing purposes to be added to the reservation, it has not yet been decided whether this is possible under the reservation doctrine. The thorough legal study prepared for the Public Land Law Review Commission concluded that the following issue, among others, was as yet unresolved: "Whether the original purposes for reservation of water may be expanded by the subsequent addition of new purposes or new programs. ,,26 Thus, the draft bill again seems to be an attempt by its drafters to cement into statutory law what has not yet been established in the cases. With respect to new reservations of water, the states concur with the recommendation of the National Water Commission that future uses in connection with reserved or withdrawn lands of the United States with the exception of Indian reservations, "should be made in conformity to state law, . .. .. and the priority date of the water right for such use should be the date of the initiation of the use by application for permit or otherwise as determined by state law."27 The drafters of the proposed bill respond to this recommendation by echoing the traditional government objections against limiting the doctrine. Thus, on pages 24 and 25 of the explanation, the drafters defend future uses under the doctrine by stating that: "It would seem clear that the public interest does not necessarily require that all future development under the 26. PLLRC Study at 136 27. National Water Commission, Water policies for the Future 466 (1973). (23)