Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0223 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />assertion of a federal right; namely "by the historic use of <br />water on public lands for consumptive beneficial uses." 38/ <br />The priority date was to vest as of the historic date of-- <br />fitSt use by the federal agency, <br /> <br />III. ANALYSIS <br /> <br />A. Constitutional Authority <br /> <br />It is clear that the United States has ample constitu- <br />tional power to acquire the water it needs to carry out a <br />program authorized pursuant to its constitutional responsi- <br />bilities. No state law can block or limit the use of water <br />by an agency if a constitutionally enacted statute gives the <br />agency the power to acquire water without reference to state <br />law for any federal function on any federal land in any <br />state. However, the fact that constitutional power exists <br />does not mean that constitutional power has been exercised. <br />The failure to make this basic distinction represents the <br />largest flaw in the Opinion. <br /> <br />It is correct to conclude that the United States has <br />not divested itself of its constitutional "uuthority" with <br />respect to unappropriated waters appurtenant to public <br />lands, Hmvever, there must be a further inquiry as to <br />whether Congress has in fact exercised such authority by <br />enpowering federal agencies to put such water to use without <br />regard to state law. I believe that an objective review of <br />Supreme Court decisions leads to the conclusion that Congress <br />has relinquished to the states plenary control over all non- <br />navigable waters, except where Congress has been deemed to <br />have revoked that control through the mechanism of an implied <br />reservation of water to satisfy purposes for which lands <br />have been withdrawn from the public domain. <br /> <br />B. Plenary Control <br /> <br />In California - Oregon Power Company v, Beaver Portland <br />Cement Company, 39/ the Supreme Court addressed the issue of <br />the effect of theActs of 1866, 1870 and 1877 "'hich disposed <br />of public domain to encourage homesteading and settlement. <br /> <br />~/ <br /> <br />Memorandum from Solicitor Clyde O. Martz entitled <br />"Supplement to Solicitor Opinion No. M-36914, on <br />Federal Water Rights of the National Park Service, <br />Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation <br />and the Bureau of Land Management (January 16, 1981). <br /> <br />12./ <br /> <br />295 U.S. 142 (1935). <br /> <br />-9- <br />