WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 00'4 take an active role in the promotion, financing and use of water resources. In the Reclamation Act of 1902, supra n.27, for example, Congress established broad authoriza~lon for federal development of facilities to reclaim arid lands. The Federal Power Act, supra n.28, passed in 1920, authorized the Federal Power Commission to license private power projects, and other acts provided for federal development or construction of large-scale multipurpose flood control, navigation or power projects. 33/ Most recently, in 1976 Congress declared in the Federal Land policy and Management Act, supra n.22, that federal policy is to retain public lands in federal ownership unless it is determined, following procedures mandated by the Act, that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest. 2. Congressional recognition of state water law As we described above, even before their admission into the Union, the western states developed customary and statutory laws governing the acquisition and use of water within their borders based primarily on appropriative rights. See p. 8 supra. Federal ownership of much of the underlying-Iand ralsed the threat of a general federal law applicable to the acquisition of rights to unappropriated water on federal lands. However, in a series of statutes passed in the last half of the nineteenth century, Congress rejected the alternative of a general federal water law, and instead largely acquiesced in comprehensive state control over the appropriation of water, including water on federal lands, at least with respect to rights that could be asserted by private appropriators. 34/ The first of these acts, the Mining Act of 1866, 35/ officially opened federally owned lands to exploration-and development by miners. Act of July 26, 1866, 14 Stat. 33/ See, e.g., Boulder Canyon project Act, Dec. 21, 1928, 45 Stat. 1057, 43 U.S.C. S 617; Colorado River Storage project, Apr. 11, 1956, 70 Stat. 105, ~ amended, 43 U.S.C. S 620. 34/ This deference to state control can be contrasted with Congress' approach to control over mining on federal lands, as to which Congress authorized comprehensive procedures and standards for assertion and protection of mineral claims. See 30 U.S.C. S 22 et seq. The Supreme Court has recently noted that "althougn-mTnrng law and water law developed together in the West prior to 1866, with respect to federal lands Congress chose to subject only mining to comprehensive federal regulation." Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U.S. 604, 613 (1978). 35/ The Homestead Act, passed in 1862 (see n.22 supra), did not contain any reference to water righ~or to th"l appropriation of water by homesteaders. - 18 -