WSP05818 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0232 . . The case of United States v. Grand River Dam Authority 66/ involved the question of whether the construction of a hydroelectric pOlver project on a non-navigable river by the UnIted States involved a taking under the 5th amendment, because it frustrated the dam authority's expectations to develop a hydroelectric project at the same site. The federal power project was a part of a comprehensive plan for regulation of navigation, flood control and power develop- ment on the Arkans~s River, a navigable river in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court held that the dam authority's interests were not compensable because an assertion of the United states superior authority under the commerce clause to improve navigation is not a taking under the fifth amend- ment. Thus, the case does not support a so-called non- reserved water right, but rather involves United States supremacy over navigation under the commerce clause. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. District Court for Eagle County 67/ is also cited in the Opinion, The Court held that theUnited States is subject to the jurisdiction of state courts in a general stream adjudication pursuant to the McCarran Amendment. The Court specifically held that all federal rights are subject to such adjudication. The Opinion refers to the phrase in the McCarran i\mendment "water rights which the United States has otherwise acquired" as an indication of the existence of non-reserved rights. However, the Court in Eagle County specifically interprets "othenvise" to mean reserved rights. ~/ The Opinion draws particular attention to the language by the Supreme Court in Cappaert v. United States to the effect that "federal water rights are not dependent upon state law or state protedures...." 69/ Cappaert was a reserved rights case, which upheld the government's claim to reserved rights to protect a species of pupfish, The cited language must be examined in context and there is nothing in the opinion to show that the Court was considering anything other than a reserved right. The Court's language was in response to the petitioner's argument, as restated by the Court, that "the federal government must perfect its implied (reserved) water rights according to state law." 70/ Thus, the la,lguage cited in the Opinion does not supportthe proposition of another exception to state jurisdiction in the form of non-reserved federal water rights.