Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0221 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />entitled united States v. New Mexico 31/ or the M~nbres <br />Valley case. The Supreme Court ruled~hat the United <br />States, in setting the Gila National Forest in New Mexico <br />aside from other public lands, reserved the use of water out <br />of the Rio !-1imbres only where necessary to preserve the <br />timber in the forest or to prudently manage the watershed in <br />such a way as to maximize yield to appropriators under state <br />law, and hence the United States is not entitled to reserved <br />rights for aesthetic, recreation, wildlife-preservation, and <br />stock watering purposes. <br /> <br />Justice Rehnquist writing for the majority, found that <br />"each time this Court has applied the "implied-reservation- <br />of-water doctrine," it has carefully examined both the <br />asserted water right and the specific purposes ,for which the <br />land was reserved, and concluded that without the water the <br />purposes of the reservation would be entirely defeated," 32/ <br />This careful examination was required, according to the -- <br />Court, because of the history of Congressional deference to <br />state law whenever the question was addressed as to whether <br />federal entities must abide by state water law. <br /> <br />The Court found that, despite this Congressional <br />deference, where water is necessary to fulfill the very <br />purposes for which a federal reservation was created, it is <br />reasonable to conclude that the United States intended to <br />reserve the necessary water, However, the Court, went on to <br />determine that "where water is only valuable for a secondary <br />use of the reservation,"' there arises the contrary infer- <br />ence that Congress intended, consistent with its other <br />views, that the United States would acquirE water in the <br />same manner as any other public or private appropriator." <br />~/ <br /> <br />The Supreme Court's decisions in these cases came on <br />the heels of another decision by the Court a month earlier <br />in Andrus v, Charlestone Stone Products 34/, reaffirming <br />that private water rights on federal pubITc lands are to be <br />governed by state and local law and that Congress, in <br />writing the Mining Act and subsequent amendments, had not <br />set up a competing, federally controlled system of assigning <br />water rights. <br /> <br />ll/ 438 U. s. 696 (1978). <br />32/ rd. at 700. <br />1l/ rd. at 702 <br />ii/ 436 U,S. 604 (1978). <br /> <br />-7- <br />