Laserfiche WebLink
<br />}r[1'" <br />~~.;.:- <br />-'"$ <br /> <br />r<) <br />00 <br />00 <br />CC) <br /> <br />({~:~ <br /> <br />.', <br /> <br />:.", ~. <br />.:,'.;. <br /> <br />The final alternative available to EET developers is the purchase of <br />Water under contract from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs in the <br />Upper Basin (see table 8.1). In general, water could be made available <br />in various amounts in the States of Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. <br />With temporary contracts, water in excess of a re~ervoir's long-term, firm <br />supply or a State's compact apportionment could be obtained. <br /> <br />Federal Reserved Rights <br /> <br />In addition to the water rights obtainable pursuant to State laws, <br />title to the use of water by the Federal Government has been asserted pur- <br />suant to tbe legal principles.of Federal, reserved water rights. These <br />'principles are important because they affect the legal status of water <br />rights in the States.. Because the reserved rights involved are generally <br />not being used now, the current physical availability of Water is, in the <br />aggregate, probably not affected. However, .if res.erved right claims ar" <br />made, decrees awarded, and new uses instituted, questions about the future <br />availability of water for consumptive uses may be raised. <br /> <br />Three important points arise from the various Supreme Court decisions <br />concerning reserved rights. F~rst, reserved water rights bave clearly <br />been limited to the purposes. for which the land was reserVed. Second, the <br />priority date for a reserved. water right is the date when the reservation <br />was made. Finally, reserved rights are a hybrid of riparian and prior <br />appropriation rights. The rights resemble riparian use (as established in <br />Winters) in that actual beneficial use is not required to retain the water <br />rights. At the same time, they have the elements of prior appropriation <br />rights in that they have a priority. date. <br /> <br />In the context of this assessment, the importance of Federal reserved <br />rights for Indian lands is exempliefied .by. the 1963 Supreme Court decree in <br />Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546. In this case". the. Court decreed to <br />five Indian reservations (Fort Mohave, Chemeheuevi, Colorado. River, Yuma, <br />and Cocopah) a right to withdraw over 900,000 acre-feet per year. Although <br />this amount may never be put to irrigation use by the tribes, the mere <br />decree of such amounts threatens, or is perceived to threaten, the viability <br />of previously decreed non-Indian water rights. <br /> <br />It is unclear whether all possible Indian water claims will be made. <br />If claimed, it is unclear what the awarded amounts will be. It is also <br />uncertain whether the cecreed amounts will actually be used by the tribes, <br />whether they must be used on the reservation, and whether the rights can be <br />sold or leased for use on or off the reservation. In short, there are <br />many uncertainties associated with Indian reserved water rights. <br /> <br />With respect to Federal reserved rights for.other than Indian reser- <br />vations, the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. New Mexico, <br />98 Sup. Ct. 302 (1978), goes a long way toward resolving uncertainty over <br /> <br />xli <br />