|
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />".' ,.1
<br />
<br />-3-
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />CalIfornIa v, UnIted States, 438 U.S, 645, 654 (19781. Th-I.s school
<br />o~ thought Is difficult 1'0_ sguare wlt~t~e reserved rights doctrIne
<br />repeatedly affIrmed-by the Supreme Court as applying to reservations
<br />of I aiidrna-state-af'fer s'fatefiood. See.~. Un I ted States v. New
<br />MexIco, 438 U.S. 696, 698, 700, n. 4 (1978): CappaerT v. 'United States,
<br />supra: cf. Winters v. UnIted States, 207 U.S, 564, 577 (1908).
<br />
<br />. -": ":.'<
<br />
<br />Moreover, the states may not exercise any governmental authority over
<br />.fede~rooerty unless they have been expressly-granted th~t aut~orlty
<br />.by__tQ~Cang~, since Congress retaIns exclusive control over the acquI-
<br />sitIon of prIvate rIghts In federal lands and Interests. Broder v. Natoma
<br />Water and Mlnlnc Co., 101 U,S. 274 (1879); Gibson v. Chouteau. 80 U.S.
<br />(13 Wa!!.) 92, 99 (1872): Irwlne v, Marshall, 61 U,S. (20 How.) 558,
<br />563 (1858). Federal control over the disposition and use of water
<br />In, on, under or appurtenant to federal land ultimately rests upon'
<br />the Supremacy Clause 4/, whIch permits the Federal Government to exercIse
<br />'Its constitutIonal prerogatives without regard to state law, Cappaert v.
<br />United States, suora at 145. ArIzona v. California, 282 U.S. 423, 451
<br />(1931); CT., Klepoe v, New Mexico, ~. at 543; Ohio v. Thomas, 173
<br />U.S. 276, 283 (1899); Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920).
<br />
<br />~..~
<br />
<br />Federal control over Its needed water rIghts. unhampered by compl lance
<br />with procedural and substantive state law, Is supported by the Supremacy
<br />Clause and the doctrine that federal activItIes are Immune Tram state
<br />regulation unless there Is a "clear congressional mandate," Kern-LimerIck
<br />Inc, v. Scurlock, 347 U.S. 110, 122 (19541; or "specific congressional
<br />actIon." Paul v, United States, 37! U,S. 245, 263 (19631, provIding
<br />for sTate conTrol. See also Ma~'o v. United S..ates. 3/9 U.S. 441, 448
<br /><19431: Hancock v. Traln-;-426 U.S. 167, 178--81 (1976); EPA v. State
<br />Water Resources Control 80ard. 426 U.S. 200, 214. 217, 221 (1976). Cf.
<br />ArIzona v. California, 28.3 U.S. 423, 451 (19311 (Congresslonally-
<br />authorized dam ana reservoir can proceed without submitting plans and
<br />specIfications to State Engineer for approval). Sta Ie Islatlve s
<br />to al I water found within state boundarIes do n remise,
<br />.~Ince Congress, under the Property Clause. has the exclusive power to
<br />dIspose of federal properTy. ~al Ifornla Oreaon Power Co. v. ~eaver
<br />Porflana-Cement-C~sup~~-at 162: utah Power & Licht Co. v. Unltea
<br />States, suora aT 404.
<br />
<br />OrIgInally, the common law 'rlparlan rules of natural flow appl led to
<br />the publIc lands. United States v. RIo Grande Dam and Irrlcatlon Co.,
<br />174 U.S, 690, 703 C/899). There the Court oplneo, In dicta. thaT
<br />~s~parlan rules could be chanqed by the state legTSTaT~~s-1lJ
<br />l.~ tne aosence of speclf Ie Congressional consent, the.y_d.td not destroy
<br />~J.9hYof-tne~UnITea-Sfatesto The continued flow of water bordering
<br />1.!s. lands needed for the beneficial use of government propert~The--
<br />
<br />!/ U.S. CaNST. art. VI, cl, 2.
<br />
<br />~ -: :-i
<br />
<br />_.~'.';':':-<,t
<br />
|