Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0225 <br /> <br />appropriation under the state laws is not denied, and could <br />not be." 421 Viewed from this perspective, the power of the <br />United States over western waters should be considered the <br />exception and not the rule. This view is reinforced in the <br />most recent decision by the Supreme Court concerning the <br />reservation doctrine, United States v. New Mexico. ill <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />After noting traditional congressional deference to <br />state water law, the Court in New Mexico found that where <br />water is necessary to fulfill the very purpose for which a <br />federal reservation was created, it is reasonable to con- <br />clude that the United States intended to reserve the neces- <br />sary water. However, the Court went on to determine that <br />"where water is only valuable for a secondary use of the <br />reservation, there aris~s the contrary inference that Congr~ss <br />intended, consistent with its other views, that the United <br />States would acquire water in the same manner as any other <br />public or private appropriator." 441 If these words are to <br />be given effect, then, except in the case of reserved rights <br />to carry out the primary purpose of a reservation, federal <br />agencies must acquire water for other congressionally <br />authorized uses pursuant to state laws, like any other <br />appropriator. <br /> <br />D. State Water Law <br /> <br />The Opinion suggests that the Court in New Mexico, may <br />have been referring to mere co~pliance with state procedures, <br />rather than with procedural and substantive state water law. <br />451 However, a reading of the language of the Court in <br />context indicates that the Supreme Court intended compliance <br />with both substantive and procedural state laws, <br /> <br />The sentence is instructive which immediately follows <br />the Court's conclusion that the government, with the excep- <br />tion of reserved rights, would acquire water in the same <br />manner as any other public or private appropriator. It <br />states tha.t "Congress indeed has appropriated funds for the <br />acquisition under state law of water to be used on federal <br />reservations," iil (emphasis added) The Court then cited <br /> <br />~I 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908) . <br />QI 438 U.S. 696 (1978) , <br />.iil Id, at 702. <br />~I Opinion at 576-577. <br />461 438 U.S. at 702. <br /> <br />-11- <br />