WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ 0069 also recognize, however, that the federal government may have reserved some .proprietary. interests in unappropriated water appurtenant to federal lands at the time tAe states were admitted into the Union. In the so-called .California doctrine" and "Oregon doctrine" states, 181 the state courts have held that the federal government haa-an original property right to all non-navigable waters on the territories that formed those states, a right it did not pass to the states at the time of their admission. Those states, however, by virtue of their sovereignty over lands within their borders, can nonetheless determine rights that appertain to federal as well as private ownership of property, such as the use of water, subject to the ultimate authority of the federal government to determine such rights on federally owned lands. 191 In the "Colorado doctrine" states, by contrast, the courts have held that the United States never acquired any proprietary interest in waters in those states, and therefore that the transfer of sovereignty to such states with their admission simultaneously transferred full power to control the disposition and use of those waters. 201 B. Role of the Federal Government The most significant role that the federal government has played in the development of water law in the western states has been that of owner of vast public lands within those states. As we discuss below, the federal government has largely acquiesced in or fostered the development of comprehensive state control over water in the western states, 181 The "California doctrine. states are California, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington. The .Oregon doctrine" is followed in Oregon and South Dakota. See Colum. Note, supra n.5, at 972-75~ Note, "Federal Nonreserved Water R~ghts,. 48 Univ. of Chi. L. R. 758, 766 n.46 (1980)~ 2 Clark, supra, 5 102.3. 191 The "Oregon doctrine. differs from the .California doctrine. Tn that it construes the Desert Land Act as establishing a uniform rule of appropriation applicable to private and federal rights. The .California doctrine" holds that the Desert Land Act, together with the Mining Acts of 1866 and 1870 (discussed at pp. 18-24, infra) merely recognized and affirmed whatever state system had been developed for allocation of water rights, including systems such as California's that recognized some riparian rights. See Colum. Note, supra n.5, at 972-75~ 2 Clark, supra, 5 102.3. 201 The 'Colorado doctrine. states are Arizona, Colorado, ICaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. 2 Clark, supra, 5 102.3(C) n.21. For a full discussion of the origins and holdings of the California, Oregon and COlorado doctrines, ~ 5 Clark, supra, 55 401, 405, 420~ Colum. Note, supra n.5, at 973-75. -13-