Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~~:~~~!: <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />use waters on lands reserved from the federal domain for specIfic pur- <br />poses, "where without the water the purposes of the reservation would <br />be entIrely defeated,"13/ -- but Instead al lowed It under a lesser <br />standard, for water necessary for the beneficial uses of , the government <br />property. <br /> <br />It Is apparent that prIor Supreme Court dicta are somewhat at war with <br />one another on this Issue. One reason for this Is found In the Desert <br />Land Act Iself. That Act was one of many statutes enacted In the <br />latter half of the 19th and early part of the twentIeth centuries to' <br />promote settlement and cultivatIon of publIc domain lands, It spoke <br />prIncIpally to the process by which arId public lands were to be Irrigated <br />and reclaimed and transferred from the public domain Into private hands. <br />See, ~, WIlliams v. United States, 138 U.S. 514 (1891); United States <br />v. Healey, 160 U.S. 136 (1895), Except to the extent the quoted language <br />applies to the Federal Government, It addressed not at al I the rIghts <br />and oblIgations of the United States as owner of those federal lands <br />not brought within the settlement scheme It establIshed. Because of <br />this, the legislative history does not contain any debate over the Impact <br />of the bill on federal water rights. <br /> <br />In any event, because the Supreme Court has spoken only by InconsIstent <br />dIctum on this subject, the guidance I must ghe federal agencIes must <br />be based to a large degree on predictIng how the Supreme Court may re- <br />solve these conflIctIng statements contained In prior decIsIons. <br /> <br />,;'1 am of the opInIon that by these ~elatlvely narrow Acts of 1866, 1870 <br />and 1877, the United States did not dIvest Itself of Its authority, as <br />sovereign, to use the unaooroorlated waters on the publIc lands for <br />governmental purposes. Supreme Court decisions upholding federal reserved <br />water rIghts created after the effectIve dates of these statutes affirm <br />thIs conclusion (UnIted States v. New Mexico, suora, at 698): <br /> <br /> <br />The Court has previously concluded <br />that whatever powers the States ac- <br />quIred over their waters as a result <br />of congressional acts and admissIon <br />to the Union, however, fongress dId <br />not I nte!Ld_th.er~e.b.y to re II nqu 1 sh <br />Its authority to reserve unaeBro- <br />_~rlated water In the future for use <br />on appurtenant lands wIthdrawn from the <br />.publlc d~ma I n_.for_spec.UJ c_federa I - <br /> <br />13/ United States v, New MexIco. 438 U.S, 696, 700 (1978), decIded <br />the same day and as a companion to California v. UnIted States, <br />supra. <br />