|
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />~;
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />-7-
<br />
<br />language Its "natural meaning." held that It "effected a severance of
<br />all waters upon the publIc demain, not theretofore appropriated, from
<br />the land Itself," apparently without I Imitation to the purposes fer
<br />which the waters could be appropriated. 101 No mentIon of. the lImItation
<br />to certaIn purposes was made In subsequent Supreme Court cases.
<br />
<br />-~~~.~
<br />
<br />FIfth, the fact that the Desert Land Act does not deal wIth federal
<br />acquisitIon of water rights has had varying significance for the
<br />Supreme Court over the years. InItially, In Rio Grande, supra, the
<br />Court stated (albeit In dIctum apart from Its discussion later In the
<br />opinion of the Desert Land Act), that the United States' right. as
<br />the owner of lands bordering a stream, to the contInued flow of such
<br />waters "as may be necessary for the beneficial uses of government
<br />property" cannot be destroyed by state legislation. 174 U,S. at
<br />703. This lImitatIon was repeated and endorsed In Winters v. United
<br />States, 207'U,S. 554. 577 (1908), and In CalIfornIa Orecon Power Co.,
<br />suora, 295 U.S. at /59. Later In the latter decision. however, the
<br />Court stated that the Desert Land Act vested the states with power
<br />"to affect the riparian rights of the United States [and] Its grantees
<br />. . . ." 295 U.S. at 162 (emphasIs added); see also 295 U.S. at IM.ll!
<br />
<br />121 ~., 295 U.S. at 158 (emphasis added),
<br />
<br />.:-:,":::.,::~
<br />
<br />III Before It was revIved to some extent by the dec'lslon In Callfornla
<br />v: United States, dIscussed Infra, Dean Trelease, a noted authority
<br />on water law, cemmented that the decIsIon In ~al Ifornla Oreoon Power Co.
<br />"now seems to.be a spurious reading of the De'sert Land Act." Trelease,
<br />"Federal Reserved RIghts Since the PLLRC," 54 Denver L. J. 473, 476
<br />(1977). Four years after California Orecon Power, the Ninth Circuit
<br />cIted the decision for the proposition that "private rights In the waters
<br />of non-navigable streams on the publIc domaIn are measured by local cus-
<br />toms, laws. and judicial decisions," but that the government may, "Inde-
<br />pendently of the formalities of an actual appropriatIon, reserve the
<br />waters of non-navIgable streams on the public domaIn If needed for
<br />governmenta I purooses." Un I ted States v. Wa I ker River I rro. D I st.. 104
<br />F.2d 334, 336-37 (9th Clr. 1939) (emphasis added), To the extent the
<br />Court's remark extends to non-reserved federal water rIghts. It Is
<br />dictum, since the case concerned an IndIan reserved water right.
<br />See also Nebraska v. Wyomlno, 325 U.S. 589, 611-16 (1945), where the
<br />Court declIned to decide whether the United States owned the unappro-
<br />priated water of the Platte RIver. because the water rights for recla-
<br />mation projects on that River were obtained In accordance with state
<br />law pursuant to section 8 of the Reclamation Act, 43 U,S.C. S 383, and
<br />therefore the question of ownershIp by the UnIted States "of unappro-
<br />prIated water Is largely academic.. "325 U,S, at 616. See also
<br />Cappaert v. UnIted States, supra, 426 U.S. at 144. fn. 9; and ArIzona-
<br />v. CalIfornia, suora, where the Court declined to consIder ArIzona's
<br />"rights to IntersTaTe or local waters whIch have not yet been. and
<br />which may never be, appropriated," 283 U.S. at 464 (citations omitted).
<br />
<br />.~
<br />" .':~~':l
<br />
<br />::-. :~.}
<br />
|