WSP03920 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0009 . . -8- These statements concerning the rights of the United States were dictum. since the case Itself concerned rights of a patentee of publIc land, square Iy covel"ed by the Desert Land Act Itse I f. Twenty years later, In Federal Power Commission v, Oreaon: supra, the Court said that the Desert Land Act "severed, for purposes of private acquisItion, soil and water rights" on public lands, 349 U.S. at 448 (emphasis addedl, without expressly mentioning federal agencies' acqui- sition of water rights. ? Twenty-one years after FPC v. Oreaon, the Court again construed the Act as provIding only that patentees of publIc land "rr.ust acquire water rIghts In non-navigable water In accordance with state law." Cappaert v. United States, supra, 426 U.S. at 143. The Court went on to state flatly: "Federal water rights are not dependent upon state law or state procedures. . . ." 426 U.S. at 145. To the extent that the remark applies to federal non-reserved water rIghts, It Is dIctum, because the case Itself concerned a federal reserved right. Two years later, however, the Supreme Court, In construing the Reclamation Act, found occasIon to observe In dictum that there are two limitations on the states' "exclusive conTrol of Its streams -- reserved rights. , . and the navigatIon servitude," CalifornIa v. United States, supra, 438 U,S. at 662. The Court cited only United States v, Rio Grande Irrlaatlon Co., supra, li4 U.S. at 703, for the proposition thaT only reserved rln~rather than al I federal water rights needed to carry out congressional Iy- mandated land management responsibilitIes, fall within this exception allowed by the Desert Land Act. In the passage cited by the Court In CalIfornIa v. United States, the Court had stated, In dictum: -::..~! [IJn the absence of specifIc authority from Congress a State cannot by Its legislation destroy the right ,of the United States, as owner of lands bordering a stream, to the continued flow of Its waters; so far at least as may be necessary for the benefIcial uses of the government prcperty.~/ It therefore seems plain that the Rio Grande Court, In construIng the Desert Land Act twenty-two years after its passage, did not limit the exception to the hIgher reserved rights standard -- the right to 12/ This passage has been repeated and endorsed several times by the Supreme Court, See,~, Gultlerres v. Albuauerque Land Co., 188 U.S. 545, 554 (1903); Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 86 (1907); California Oreaon Power Co., supra, 295 U.S. at 159. .,