Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />0013 <br /> <br />-16- <br /> <br />"~~f;.;~ <br /> <br />Water Rights," 6-7 (I~ov. 7, 1950); ct. UnIted States v. LIttle Lake Mlsere <br />Land Co., 412 U,S, 560 (1973), It IS also unanimously recognized by <br />commentators and others; e.g" In the words of the National Water <br />Ccmmlss Ion: "Federal agencIes J:--an m~~~J~ wateLu~s_e.:Lthat_n~.ther <br />cQ.lJ1P-1Y_Y/ Ith Sta~l-aw-nor----can- e Ju~ e n.-9.er the reservat Ion doctd.ne. <br />T~_fJ.9~0~ed_eral~m:;!ys to make s.!!ch us~~nofDe denied under <br />the Supremacy Clau~, If tne-water has been taken Tnrough the exercIse <br />of constItutional power." And further: "The reservatIon doctrine Is a <br />financIal doctrine only; It confers no power on the Federal Government <br />that It does not otherwise enjoy. AnytIme the United States needs water <br />. . . to carry out a program authorized by the ConstitutIon, It has ample <br />power to acquire It." National Water CommissIon, Water PolIcIes for -the <br />Future, at pp. 466, 467 (1973); see also F. Trelease, Federal-State <br />RelatIons In Water Law 147; (Legal Study No.5, prepared for National <br />Water Commission, Sept. 7, 1971); C. Wheatley, Studv of the DeveloDmert, <br />the Management, and Use of Water Resources on 78-80, 112-116 (1969). <br /> <br />Although such rights are In the foregoIng respects exactly congruent ~Ith <br />ordinary state appropriatIon law, tlLe_apPI-opclatlon for authorIzed federal <br /><il~oses~canno:l: hp otrlctly lImIted by what st.at~e_wa.t~s Is <br />_a~d_Lv.m:s.lon" of waterfOl') a "benetlclal use" for which water can be <br />appropr I atea:- ~ <br /> <br />~~.il <br /> <br />Only Congress, as stated earlier, has the authority under tile Property <br />Clause to control the dIspositIon and use of water appurtenant to lanns <br />owned by the UnIted States, See KleDDe v. New Mexico, suora; cf. United <br />States v. LIttle La~e Mlsere Land Co., 412 U.'i. 580, 59:5-97"( 1973)--- <br /><This case held That federal courts may fashion rules of federal la" <br />necessary to carry out Important congressionally-authorized programs; <br />I.e., land acquisitIons under the Migratory Bird ConservatIon Act; where <br />state laws do not provide appropriate standards or unauly Interfere <br />wIth federal programs); United States v, Albrecht, 496 F.2d 906, 909-11 <br />(9th Clr. 1974) (state law's failure to recognize property Interest In <br />an easement taken by the Federal Government to carry out the MIgratory <br />Bird Huntln9 Stamp Act does not prevent enforcement of easement, to <br />carry out congressionally-authorIzed national program). It Is my opinion <br />that, since Congress has vested only the publIc with the rIght to appro- <br />priate unappropriated water arising on, under, through or appurtenant <br />to federally-owned lands under state taw, the United States Itself re- <br />tains a proprIetary Interest In those waters that have not been appro- <br />priated pursuant to state law. The UnIted States therefore retains <br />the power to utIlIze those unepproprlated waters to carry out the manage- <br />ment objectives specifIed In congressional directives. Such dIrectives <br />are authorized under the broad powers contained In the Property Clause. <br />See Kleope v, New MexIco, supra. <br /> <br />Any legislatIon enacted by Congress to accomplish management objectIves <br />on federal lands preempts conflicting state regulations or laws as a <br />result of the operation of the Property and Supremacy Clauses of The <br />United States ConstItution. See KleDDe v. New Mexico. suora. Any <br />authority the states may have~en given to regulate and adminIster <br />