Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0012 <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-14- <br /> <br />State law requirements such as notice of application to beneficial use <br />are not required to perfect reserved water rights. Caooaert v. United <br />States. su?r~, at 143, 145, The "volume and scope of particular <br />reserved rights, are fedaral questions" cal ling for the applIcation <br />of federal law (e.g,. the fact that state water law systems may not <br />provide for minimum Instream flows Is Irrelevant If such flows are <br />needed to carry out the purposes of the reservation), though state courts <br />are competent to Initially determine federal reserved water rights In <br />McCarran Amendment (43 U.S.C, 9 666) proceedings. United States v. <br />DistrIct Court for Eaole Count'!, 401 U.S. 520, 526 (/971). Flnally, <br />reserved water rights encompass both existing and reasonably foreseeable <br />future water uses necessary to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. <br />See Arizona v. California, 373 U.S., supra, at 600-601. <br /> <br />In sum, the federal reserved water right Is created by Implication <br />as well as by express language In the reservation of public land for <br />particular purposes, It arises from federal law, and Is not depen- <br />dent on state law for Its existence or perfection. It does not <br />require that water be put to actual use, and therefore Is different <br />from the concept of appropriation of water upon whiCh Western states <br />principally, but not excluslvely,21/ rely. It establishes a right to <br />water to carry out the purpose(sJ-of the federal reservation as of <br />the date the reservation Is created, whether the water Is actually <br />put to use and whether future appropriators under state law have actual <br />knowledge of Its existence. Certain other contours of the reserved <br />water rIghts doctrine "remain unspecified" and guIding the Department's <br />approach to some of these must await concrete fact situations, In the <br />absence of precedent to guide reasonable assertion of reserved water <br />rights, See United States v, New MexIco, sucra, at 700.22/ This reserved <br />right doctrine Is appl led to the various types of federar-reservatlons <br />administered by the Department In sections IV-VI I I of this opinion. <br /> <br />~/ Some Western states recognize the existence of riparian rights, ~hlch <br />may not depend upon actual use, and can create uncertainty with respect <br />to other, "vested" state water rights based on actual appropriatIon and <br />use so long as they are unadjudlcated, In the same manner as unquantl- <br />fled federa! reserved rIghts, See,~, In Re Waters of Long Va I fey <br />Creek Syste~, 84 Cal. App.3d 140 (Cal. Ct, App, (978), aopeal pend~, <br />Cal. Sup. Ct.; see also United States v. Gerlcch Live Stock Co.. 339 U.S. <br />725, 742-55 (1950).---- <br /> <br />22/ As an excmple, this opinion does not discuss whether the reserved <br />water rights doctrine applies to acquired lands. Whl Ie I am of the <br />opinion that persuasive arguments may be made both for or against the <br />assertIon of reserved rights on acquired lands of the United States, <br />I do not find It necessary to resolve this Issue In this opinion be- <br />cause It Is the policy of the Department to acquire water rights on <br />[footnote continued] <br /> <br />....';: <br />. ::.~ <br />