My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05818
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05818
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:20:01 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:17:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8062
Description
Federal Water Rights
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
5/1/1981
Author
WSWC Solicitor?
Title
Acquisition of Water Rights by the United States on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management-Water and Power Resources Service-National Park Service-Fish and Wildlife Service
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.
/
23
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 />0226 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />an example in the National Parks Act where, "Congress <br />authorized appropriations for the lilnvestigation and <br />estabLLshment of water rights in accordance with local <br />custom, law, and decisions of courts, including the ac- <br />quisition of water rights or of lands or of interest in <br />lands or rights-of-way for use and protection of water <br />rights necessary or beneficial in the administration and <br />public use of the national parks and monuments." 47/ <br />(emphasis added) -- <br /> <br />The Supreme Court then alludes to the fact that "the <br />agencies responsible for administering the federal reser- <br />vations have also recognized Congress' intent to acquire <br />under state lawany I'later not essential to the specific <br />purposes of the reservation." (emphasis added) ~/ <br /> <br />It seems clear from the Court's discussion that the <br />Court did not envision mere procedural compliance with state <br />law. Moreover, a distinction between procedure and sub- <br />stance with respect to the appropriative doctrine is con- <br />ceptually untenable. <br /> <br />The procedures by which an individual acquires an <br />appropriative water right consists of a permit which rep- <br />resents a state determination that the water will be used <br />for "beneficial" purposes. This right is inherently limited <br />by the duty, usually found in the conditions in the permit, <br />to stop using water when its use ceases to be "beneficial", <br />~/ <br /> <br />fl/ <br />48/ <br /> <br />~/ <br /> <br />Id. at 702-703. <br /> <br />Although severely critical of the Supreme Court's <br />decision in New Mexico, an article in the Stanford <br />Law Review concludes that the Court intended that the <br />Secretary of Interior not only comply with state <br />procedures to control, appropriate, use, or distri <br />bute the water, but also abide by state substantive <br />law as well. The author concludes that "interpreting <br />the Court's language as only mandating procedural con- <br />formance to state water law would "trivialize" its <br />effect." B, Machmeier, Federal Acquisition of Non- <br />Reserved Water Rights After New Mexico, 31 Stan. L. <br />Rev. 885 ( 19 7 9) . <br /> <br />R. Dewsnup & D. Jensen, A Summary-Digest of State <br />Water Laws 29-31 (19731 Study prepared for the <br />National Water Commission). <br /> <br />-12- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.