WSP03920

• File Number: 8062
• Description: Federal Water Rights
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 6/22/1979
• Author: WSWC
• Title: Solicitors Opinion Concerning Federal Reserved Water Rights
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.

.

0024

-38-

conditions which were later determined by the Supreme Court to ~lave been
violated. and Congress ordered title revested In the United States, 73/

:-CJi!l

Congress directed that those lands "classifIed as timber 'lands, and power-
site lands valuable for timber," should be managed "for permanent forest
productlon."74/

I am of the opinion that the revestlng of these lands In the United
States did not effect a formal reservation of these lands for which
the United States may claim a reserved water right, nor did the "O&C"
Act do anything more than provide (as did the Tayler Grazing Act)
how these lands were to be managed. There are therefore no reserved
water rights on "O&C" lands.

7, The Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964

The Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964 75/ provided a system
for classifying whIch public lands were to be disposed of under appl1c-
able publIc land laws and which were to be retained for Interim multiple
use management. 76/ The Act was to be "consistent with and supplemental

--

73/ In 1908. Congress authorized the Attorney General to file suit
against the Oregon and California Ral froad Company for forfeiture of
Its unsold Indemnity lands for vioLation of an enforceable covenant.
The U,S. Supreme Court found for the United S;ates, and reffianded the
case to Congress for a legislative solution. Orecon and California
R,R. Co. v. U.S., 238 U.S. 393 (!915). Congress responded by passing
the Act of June 16, 1916; which paid the Ral lroad Company $2.50 for
each acre of land It was entitled to because of actual construction
and revested In the United States title to al I land which had been
unsold prior to July I. 1913, In the same 1908 resolution authorizing
suit against the Oregon and California Railroad Company for recovery
of Its grant, Congress authorized suit against the Coos Bay Wagon Road
Company upon the same grounds. In 1919, whl Ie the Company was awaiting
appeal to the U.S, Supreme Court after losing In the federal district
court, C~ngress authorized dismissal of the suit and payment to the
Company for Its Interests In the lands upon reconveyance to the UnlteQ
States (40 Stat. 1179-1180). The money paid the Company was the maximum
which Congress Intended the Company should derive from Its original
grant.

74/ 43 U,S.C. S 1181 et seq.

75/ 43 U.S.C. S 1411 et ~.

76/ This Act expired of Its own terms in 1970. See 43 U.S.C. S 1418.

:':1

?':?3