WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

United States yield to immediate development under state law. The people of this land are entitled to a more critical evaluation of the objectives of the reservations for the many purposes of the United States before its valuable rights to use the waters now reserved for its purposes are abandoned by the enactment of legislation so providing." There is no merit to the argument that the abandonment of future uses under the doctrine would frustrate any federal program or purpose. Anytime the United States needs water to carry out a program authorized by the constitution, it has ample power to acquire it. No state's law can block or limit this power. No theory of federal ownership of the reservation is required. All that would be lost without the doctrine is the power to take water without compensating prior established users for impairment of their supply.28 As previously pointed out, there is no justification for continuing to sanction the use of this power. The drafters of the bill also contend in their explanation that there has been no "real evidence" of interference with existing state rights by the exercise of federal reserved rights, or if projects based on new appropriations under state law being frustrated because of the existence of unknown and un- quantified reserved rights. There are three answers to this argument. First, it is not factual. ~~ere are documented examples of interference with state water users by the exercise of federally reserved rights.29 Secondly, although it is difficult to prove how many specific projects have been frustrated by the un- certainties the doctrine generates, the doctrine's adverse effects on water resource planning and development are apparent. As the National Water Commission concluded: II .. the reservation doctrine frustrates sound planning in the public and private sectors of the economy. The prospective claims of the government are highly uncertain as to time, manner and quantity of use. Consequently, no planner or in- vestor can establish a meaningful water budget. It is im- possible to prove how many non-federal projects were not under- taken because of these uncertainties, but statements to the commission reveal profound concern on the part of state officials."30 Thirdly, conceding that, as yet, the doctrine's threat to deprive state permittees of their water rights without compensation has not been fully realized, this potential is undisputable. Some state representatives in recent years have advocated federal legisla- tion to inventory and adjudicate federal water rights to remove the cloud on the status of state created water rights imposed by the prospective federal 28. National Water Commission Study at 147m. 29. See, i.e., Glenn v. United States, Civil No. C-IS3-61 (D. Utah, Mar. 16, 19631. United States v. Cappaert, Civil No. L.V. - 1687 U.S.D. Ct. Nev., filed Aug. 19, (1971). 30. National Water Commission, Water Policies for the Future 467 (1973). (241