My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03920
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03920
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:52:49 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:02:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />--..e <br /> <br />m_. <br /> <br />..J .....j .- <br />1Il,.,- '0' ..... <br /> <br />" '. <br /> <br />-49- <br /> <br />~>.:~?f!~ <br /> <br />holding Is supported by the view that the promotion of the public <br />good Is a primary purpose of the monument reservation and that It <br />Includes public enjoyment of both stated and unstated monument ob- <br />jectives. Moreover, the holding Is supported by the view that the <br />1916 National Park Service Organic Act, discussed below, merely con- <br />firmed the purposes for which national monuments have always been <br />reserved. F I na I I y, the 1911 pr lor I ty date for reserved water rights <br />In conserving objects not expressly covered until the 1916 Act Is <br />supported by a "relation-back" theory In Arizona v. California, <br />supra (Lake Mead National Recreation Area given priority dates of <br />1929 and 1930 when executive orders withdrew lands "pending determina- <br />tion as to the advlsabl I Ity of Including such lands In a national <br />monument," though no national monument was created and Lake Mead <br />National Recreation Area purposes were not expressly stated untl I <br />1964), and United States v. Walker River Irrlaatlon District, 104 <br />F.2d 334 (9th Clr. 1939) (where an Indian reservation was given an <br />1859 priority date when the Indian Commissioner suggested a reserva- <br />tion, though the tract was not formally reserved until 1874). This <br />"re I at 1 on-back" theoty I s not I ncons I stent with the New Max Ico Court's <br />view of the effect of the 1960 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act on <br />national forests, since that statute Indicated that the additional <br />purposes were supplemental and subsidiary to the 1897 Organic Act <br />purposes, while the 1916 Act merely confirmed the "fundamental <br />purpose" for which national monuments have always been reserved. <br />Thus, I conclude that pre-1916 natJonal monuments receive the re- <br />served water rights dlsc~ssed above In the nc-~10nal park context, <br />carrying a priority date of the date of the establishing presiden- <br />tial proclamation, <br /> <br />';"~:.~~~ <br /> <br />2. Effect of the 1916 National Park Service <br />Orqanlc Act <br /> <br />With the passage of the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act, the pur- <br />poses of national monuments were-explicitly stated for the first time: <br /> <br />the fundamental purpose of said. . <br />monuments. Is to conserve the <br />scenery and-the natural and historic <br />objects and the wildlife therein and <br />to provide for the enjoyment of the <br />same In such manner and by such means <br />as will leave them unimpaired for the <br />enjoyment of future generatlons.921 <br /> <br />921 16 U.S.C. ~ I (1970). <br /> <br />- --l <br />. : .-:.'~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.