WSP05881 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Baaton, ~Ml;"...,[from Pog. 4 J03136 From that point on, Congress almost continuously had before it legislative proposals relating to the substance and procedure of federal reserved water rights.22 Had Congress desired to reserve water rights out of unappropriated waters for any new federal land reservations or reclassifications of existing reservations or withdrawals, it merely had to say so. To allow the implied reserved water rights doctrine to operate as to these new reservations would elevate the doctrine above its original PUI]JOse. As described in the preceding historical section, the doctrine is really nothing more than the application of the standards of construction of statutes and laws. The true test in this process is not discerning what might have been intended; but rather, as stated by Justice Holmes, "[w]e do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statute means."23 To that end, the plain language of the WUderness Act must be resorted to; nowhere is it indicated that reserved water rights are created in wilderness areas. Supporting this result is the rule that courts consider contemporary history when construing a statute or law,24 In the case of the WUderncss Act, Congress was deciding the merits of that bill at the same time it was considering a legislative proposal for addressing the issue of federal water rights.25 Since Congress was legislating about wilderness areas in light of experience with the issue of federal reserved water rights, had it wished to reserve water rights for wilderness areas, it could easily have done so explicitly. The fact is that it did not. To those who believe that from other pans of the text of the Wilderness Act that Congress really intended to reserve water, "[t]he short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way. "26 The practical difficulties created by the continued use of the implied reservation doctrine also need to be addressed. Water rights in Colorado and other western states are considered real property. As a mauer of necessity, property interests must be defmed so that people can know what it is that they own and can rely on, WhUe subject to the vagaries of u~e natural supply in the river, appropriators have water rights with known priorities on which they depend. An implied reserved water right upsets the justifiable reliance that water appropriators have with respect to the state water system. The uncertainty created by an implied water reservation is similar to the confusion that would be engendered by Congress creating a new federal land reservation in Colorado, yet failing to identify its boundaries. People would then be required to go about their business in the state at the peril of later being ousted by this mysterious reservation. I doubt whether such action would be tolerated, nor should the continued use of the implied reservation of water doctrine be tolerated. Supporting the notion that Congress in the Wilderness Act did not reserve water is Congress' provision for reserved water rights in the WUd and Scenic Rivers Act,27 passed in 1968, There, Congress expressly reserved unappropriated water for the PUI]JOses of the Act, though in a backhanded manner: Designation of any stream or ponion thereof as a national wild. scenic or recreational river area shall not be construed as a reservation of the waters of such streams for purposes other than those specific in this chapter, or in quantities greater than necessary to accomplish these purposes.28 A similar provision could have been placed into the Wildemess Act only four years earlier, but was not. f f r Finally, even if it were correct to apply the implied reservation of water rights doctrine to wilderness areas, the end product should not be federal reserved water rights, The legislative history relied upon by the Federal District Court in Sierra Club v, Block was general statements regarding wilderness values; none of the legislative reports or statements specifically referred to reservation of unappropriated water. In stark contrast is the explanation provided on both House and Senate floors regariling the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Enactment of the bill would reserve to the United Stales sufficient unappropriated water flowing through Federal lands involved to accomplish the PUI]JOse of this legislation. Specifically, only that amount of water will be reserved which is reasonably necessary for the preservation and protection of those feanrres for which a particular river is designated in accordance with the bUI. It follows that all unappropriated and unreserved waters would be available for appropriation and use under State law for future development of the area.29 If, indeed. water is the "lifeblood" of wilderness areas (as the Court in Sierra Club v. Block opined), then one would expect clear legislati ve history indicating so, similar to those Slatemenl5 surrounding passage of the Wild Rivers Act. It is not there. Future of Federal Reserved Wate. Rights. The doctrine of implied federal reserved water rights should be gi ven a proper burial and wake. Congress is required to squarely address the federal water rights issue and provide the western water users with clear and unambiguous language reserving water or not. Congress can no longer be permitted to abdicate in this area, for the danger of courts usurping L'le leg;slati'!e function in L~e guise of interpretation is apparent to all, no matter which side of the issue you embrace. Recent legislative proposals regarding wilderness areas have been encouraging in this respect, for they have expressly addressed the water rights issue.3o To this observer, provision of water for preservation and recreational purposes is best resolved on the state level, rather than in the courts or by a Congress which cannot devote the time and effort necessary to understand the peculiar problems to be faced in each of the western states. In Colorado there is an existing procedure by which the Colorado Water Conservation Board can obl:lin and acquire instream flows and lake levels for preservation an51 recreation uses)1 The proliferntion of conservation groups in the western states ensures that the envirorunental concerns will be heard. Rather lhan arguing to courts ad infinilum as to what Congress might or might not have intendcd, the parties should enter the regional legislative or administrative ring and work out solutions in which both water use and water conservation are reasonably accommodated 11 Hopkinson v. SIBle. 632 P.2d 79 (Wyo.. 1981) 2J Cappacn v. Uniled Stales. 426 U.S. 128, 138 (1976). 31 National Water Commission Report on Federal Reserved WaJ.er Rights (1973) -7.