WSP03920 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . , 0014 -18- , would contradict the unanimous view of the authoritIes cited above that the Federal Government's right to appropriate unappropriated water neces- sary to carry out congresslonally-mandated management functions cannot be defeated by state law definitions of beneficial use or diversion. While' am firm In my opinion that federal non-reserved water rights are not dependent upon the substantive contours of state water law, the Issue whether they must be perfected under state procedures Is a closer question; e.g., while congressionally-authorized programs may plainly be frustrated In certain states If the substance of state taw Is blndlnq on federal aaencles, cf., United States v. Little Lake Mlsere Land Co.,-412 U.S. 580 (1973), nO-equal danger Is posed by compl lance--- with state procedures, :"!r};~ Complying with state procedural law has certain advantages. It puts subsequent state appropriators on clear notice of federal rights, re- duces uncertainty, and allows better Integration of state and federal water rights. It Is also literally consistent with one Interpretation of the dictum In United States v. New Mexico, SUDra; I.e., the United States would acquire waTer In the same way -- by the same procedures -- as any. appropriator. . While predicting the outcome If and when this Issue reaches the Supreme Court Is difficult, given the conflicting Indications over the last hun- dred years of decisions construing the 1866, 1870 and 1877 Acts, I am of the opInion that the better policy Is to fol low state procedural law In acquiring federal water rights to the greatest practicable extent. This Includes fol lowing state procedural law In all cases InvolvIng approDrla-. tlon of non-reserved water rights and state substantive law where that law recognizes the federal appropriative rights In all pertinent respects, .~~ I am unable to say that such compliance Is required as a matter of law, but because It may be required, the safer course Is to follow state procedures In perfecting non-reserved water rights. Although I have determIned that InterIor agencies should comply with state la~ to the greatest practicable extent, this should not be construed as a waiver of any rights to the use of water which agencies of this Department have established In the past, even If the use relates to other than a reserved right and Is of a type which agencies should make applicatIon for through state procedures In the future. Interior agencies should, however, attempt promptly to record these existing uses wIth the states. Therefore, .appllcatlon should be made pursuant to state procedural law for all uses of water Interior land management agencies are making and plan to make on the federal lands they manage which are not covered by reserved rights, as discussed more specifically In parts IV-IX below, C. Other Methods for Acqulrtnq Water Rlqhts The United States has available other methods by which It can acquire water rights for use on federal lands. Chief among these wel 1- recog~lzed methods are purchase, donatIon, exchange or condemnation. ..; ;.<:-: