WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

federal withdrawn or reserved lands. can be expected to advocate4its broad litigation upon the matter. Nevertheless, the Justice Department construction of the doctrine in any future Although the proposed bill drafted by the Justice Department does not expressly incorporate this broad construction, it would easily accommodate this position. On Page 12 of the "Statement" the following interpretation is set forth: "It (the reserved rights doctrine) simply holds . . . that when public lands are withdrawn or reserved for authorized purposes requiring the use of water, the rights to use a sufficient amount of unappropriated waters pertaining thereto to accomplish those purposes is also reserved, and, in the words of the Supreme Court in Winters, exempted I from appropriation under state laws. I II Thus it is suggested that the mere act of withdrawal automatically results as a matter of law in the reservation of appurtenant unappropriated waters for the purposes of the reservation. The only limitation here is, of course, the reference to the satisfaction of authorized purposes. However, as later explained, the proposed bill allows the purposes to be expanded by subsequent legislation. The application of the reservation doctrine is dependent on the assumption that the government intended to reserve unappropriated water for the reserved land. Thus, in the landmark case of Winters v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress must have intended to reserve rights to water for lands it set aside by treaty for an Indian reservation, even though it did not expressly provide for them. This intention to reserve water was implied on the basis that it would be unconscionable for the united States to have induced Indians onto a reservation, where they were to settle and develop an agricultural economy, with- out providing them with an adequate supply of water for agricultural and related purposes. However, the special circumstances that may justify an implication of an intent to reserve water for the Indians are not present with respect to other federal establishments.6 A significantly greater showing of an intention to reserve waters for non-Indian lands as opposed to Indian lands should there- fore be required. If this intention is not expressed in the legislation or order authorizing the withdrawal, or if it is not clearly implied from the authorization, then the government should not be deemed to have reserved rights. The draft hill's failure to.so provide is, in the states~ view, objectionable. B. The Justice Department proposal contains no limit on the uses of water that may be deemed to be within the implied intent on establishment of the reservation. The cases on the reservation doctrine have not yet defined the nature and scope of the permissable uses of water that may be deemed to be within the implied intent on establishment of the reservation. Again, some government attorneys take a very broad view of this issue. Thus, for example, a Department of Justice 4. Id. at 148. 5. Winters v. United States, 6. Note, Water in the Woods: Lands, 20 Stan. L.Rev. 1187, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). The Reserved Rights Doctrine and National Forest 1188 (1968). (4)