WSP03920 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . -29- .... .' t. ... .. ... '" .::7"':'-\1 Whether the waters of a partIcular spring or water hole are reserved Is In each Instance, however, a federal question cal ling for the applica- tion of federal law, U.S. v. DIstrict Court of Eaole County, ~ at 526, and not dependent on state law or procedure. CaDpaert v. U.S., supra at 145. It Is thus clear that Hyrup does not, and could not under the holdings of the Supreme Court, stand for the proposition that the Un I ted States I s sub ject to vary I ng state def In! t! C'~s of such.. terms as "tributary," "spring," and "water hole," that In turn are alwaYs subject to change by state legislatures. I belIeve that Congress, In authorizing the Executive withdrawals In the 1910 and 1916 Acts, Intended to confer broad authority to preserve for public use the sources of water on the publIc domain which were neces- sary for the proper development and use of the lands. The Executive withdrawals of 1926, and those whIch preceded It, were Intended to pre- vent the recurrence of past abuses on the public domain and affected all water holes and springs as commonly defined. These water sources, as of the date of the withdrawals, were no longer subject to private appro- priation under state law. I am also of the opinIon that abandonment of a sprIng or water hole as defIned herein by ~n Individual who had a vested water right to that source pursuant to state law causes the 1926 Executive Order to attach at the time of abandonment. Whether a given source Is or has been affected by the withdrawal Is a matter of federal law. See,~, Cappaert vo. United States, 426 U,S. 128, 143-46 (19761, I am therefore of the opinion that actions by a state legIslature In definIng classes of water cannot alter the effect of the federal actIon. 5. Effect of 1926 Withdrawal on Water Rlahts Established Under State Law 1.....>._'< -- Previous decisIons of this Department, with whlch,1 fully concur, have uniformly held that the 1926 Order (lIke al I reservations creating reserved rights) cannot Interfere with a water right vested under state law prior to the 1926 withdrawal date.491 , Where a state water right does not vest until after 1926, however, that water right Is IneffectIve agaInst the 1926 withdrawal. For example, In Jack A, Medd 501, the Department found that a 1940 permit was Ineffec- tive to appropriate the waters of the springs since those waters had been reserved 1 n 1926. The Medd dec I s lon, stand I ng for the propos ti-t on that a state approprIative permit Issued subsequent to the 1926 withdrawal Is Ineffective to confer a right In the permittee, Is hereby reaffirmed, 491 See Thomas Morqan, 52 1.0. 735 (19291; State of ArIzona, 59 I.n, T4 (1945); A.T. West & Sons, supra, SOl 60 1.0, 79 (1947). .". .:...:..~ '..,-'-~....