Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0229 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Court in California discussed the Rio Grande case <br />as follmvs: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"In united States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co., <br />supra-for example, New Mexico's authority to adopt a <br />prior appropriation system of water rights for the Rio <br />Grande river \.ias challenged, The Court, unhes i tating ly, <br />held that 'as to every stream within its dominion, a <br />state may change the common-law rule and permit the <br />appropriation of the flowing waters for such purposes <br />as it deems wise.' The Court noted that there are two <br />limitations to the Stat2s' exclusive cont~ol of its <br />streams-reserved rights "so far at least as may be <br />necessary for the beneficial uses of the government <br />property" and the navigation servitude. The Court, <br />however, was careful to emphasize with respect to <br />these limitations on the States' power that, except <br />where the reserved rights or navigation servitude of <br />the United States are invoked, the State has total <br />authority over its internal waters." (emphasis added). <br />57/ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Although the California case did not involve a claim by <br />the United states to a reserved right, the case was cited by <br />the Court in its New Mexico decision. As previously noted <br />the Supreme Court stated in New Mexico that where the United <br />States is not entitled to a reserved right to carry out the <br />primary purposes of a reservation, "Congress intended,.. <br />that the United States would acquire water in the same <br />manner as any other public or private appropriator." ~/ <br /> <br />Considering both decisions, the Supreme Court has made <br />a clear statement to the effect that the states have been <br />given exclusive power to allocate water from their streams, <br />except where the United States invokes the reservation <br />doctrine or the navigation servitude. <br /> <br />The Opinion also places reliance on court decisions not <br />involving a federal water rights claim. United States <br />v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 59/ is basically a choice of <br />law case. The United States brought a title action to land <br />parcels that it acquired for a wildlife refuge in Louisiana. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />57/ 438 U.S. at 662, <br />58/ Id. at 702. <br />59/ 412 u.s. 580 (1973). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-15- <br />