WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2124 A. The draft bill allows reserved riqhts to be claimed without the showing of an intention expressed or clearly implied in the authorizing legislation, treaty, or order to create reserved federal water rights for the purposes of the land withdrawn. In his study prepared for the National Water Commission, Dean Frank J. Trelease described the reservation doctrine as follows: "If the United States, by treaty, act of Congress, or executive order, reserves a portion of the public domain for a federal purpose which will ultimately require water, and if at the same time the government intends to reserve unappropriated water for that purpose, then sufficient water to fulfill that purpose is reserved from appro- priations by private uses. The effect of the doctrine is twofold: (1) When the water is eventually put to use the right of the United States will be superior to private rights in the source of water acquired after the date of the reservation, hence, such private rights may be impaired or destroyed without compensation by the exercise of the reserved right; and (2) the federal use is not subject to state laws regulating the appropriation and use of water. III This description of the doctrine was gleaned from the relatively few cases that deal with the reservation doctrine. AS the Public Land Law Review Com- mission pointed out, however, despite the fact that the actual scope of the reservation doctrine, as determined in litigated cases, "has been only infrequently and closely applied, a nl.imber of knowledgeable Justice Department officials have characterized it as having a much broader reach. As an example, in the case of Glenn v. United States, an unreported order without opinion by a Utah State District Court, the brief of the United States Attorney claimed that: 'It is a settled proposition of law that the withdrawal of lands from the public lands as in the creation of an Indian reserva- tion of all of the unappropriated waters which are appurtenant to the lands so withdrawn for the purposes of the reservation. I ,,2 If this were, in fact, a settled proposition, it would follow that a reserva- tion of all of the unappropriated water which are appurtenant to the lands would be created automatically as a matter of law concomitant with the withdrawal of lands. 3 However, an examination of both the text and legislative history of the acts authorizing federal withdrawals from the public domaine does not support such a proposition. Indeed, one of the most striking features of the case law on the reservation doctrine is the absence of any clear enactment by Congress directly authorizing the reservation of water for the purposes of the 1. F.J. Trelease, Federal-State Relations in Water Law 109 (1971) (hereinafter referred to as the National Water Commission Study). 2. C. Wheatley & C. Corker, Study of the Development, Management and Use of Water Resources on the Public Lands 146 (1969) (hereinafter referred to as the PLLRC Study). 3. Id. (3)