WSP05818 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0220 . . that Section 8 only demands reference to state law for definitions of compensable property. ~/ Such a position was urged successfully by the federal government before a federal district court in California in 1975. 27/ The trial court ruled that the Bureau must apply to theState Board for a permit to appropriate unappro- priated water, as a matter of comity. However, the court ruled that the State Board must issue such a permit once it determines that unappropriated water is available and could not impose any conditions in such a permit, The case of California v, United States 28/ or the so- called New Melones case ,. was ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Court decided in a 6-3 decision in favor of the states' position; namely, that the state may impose any condition on the control, appropriation, use or dis- tribution of water in a federal reclamation project that is not inconsistent with clear congressional directives respec- ting the project. In reversing, the Supreme Court considered the language in its earlier decisions in Ivanhoe, City of Fresno and Arizona v, California. The Court disavowed that language "to the extent that it would prevent (California) from imposing conditions on the permits granted to the United States which are not inconsistent with Congressional pro- visions authorizing the project in question." 29/ The Court concluded that it ,."as clear "that state lalV wasexpected to control in two important respects. First, and of control- ling importance to this case, the Secretary would have to appropriate, purchase, or condemn necessary water rights in strict conformity with state law,... Second, once the waters were released f~om the dam, their distribution to individual landowners would again be controlled by state law." lQ/ On the same day as the Supreme Court handed down this decision on the Reclamation Act, it determined another significant case concerning the reservation doctrine, 26/ Sax, Problems of Federalism in Reclamation Law. 37 U. Colo. L. Rev. 49 (1964). 27/ United States v. California, 403 F. Supp. 874 (E. D. Cal. 1975). 438 U. S. 645 (1978). ~/ 29/ 30/ Id. at 674. Id. at 665, 667. -6-