WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. 0080 See, ~.~., California v. united States, supra, 438 U.S. at 678-79. This position is supported by the Senate Report on the Amendment, which states that: - In the arid Western States, for more than 80 years, the law has been the water above and beneath the surface of the ground belongs to the public, and the right to the use thereof is to be acquired from the State in which it is found, which State is vested with the primary control thereof . Since it is clear that the States have the control of water within their boundaries, it is essential that each and every owner along a g~ven water course, including the United States, must be amenable to the law of the State, ~f there 1S to be a proper adm~n~strat~on of the water law as it has developed over the years. . S. Rep. No. 755, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 6 (1951) (emphasis added). In each of these statutes, Congress recognized that the western states have a legitimate interest in and responsibility for the allocation of water resources within their borders. Specific provisions of federal statutes such as the Reclamation Act and Federal Power Act, however, have led to conflicts between federally mandated uses of water and state regulation of those uses. Those conflicts were left to the courts to resolve. 3. Judicial recognition of federal water rights The Supreme Court has grappled on several occasions with the federal government's rights to use or dispose of water in the western states in the context of particular federal statutes, including the Reclamation Act and the Federal power Act and statutes authorizing the reservation of land for particular federal purposes. Because Congress has not legislated definitively on the scope of the federal government's rights to use water on federal lands in the western states, 42/ we must look at the Court's construction of those specific statutes to determine the principles and analysis the Court would apply to questions of federal rights that have not yet been litigated. The Supreme Court has recognized that even if a particular federal statute does not expressly authorize a federal agency to acquire water rights without regard to applicable state law, the federal government may nonetheless in some circumstances assert an implied right to use or divert unappropriated water in derogation of state law. The Supreme Court's recognition of such implied rights has rested in each case on a finding of implied congressional intent to preempt application of state law. The Court has found such intent in at least two circumstances: 42/ See n.91 lnfra. -24-