WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 0085 In United States v. New Mexico, the Court upheld, for the first time, a denial of reserved rights to the federal government. In New Mexico, the Forest Service asserted re- served rights to waters within the Gila National Forest, including minimum instream flows, "for the requirements and purposes of the forests" as of the date that various tracts of public lands were withdrawn from the public domain for inclu- sion in the Forest. The Forest Service's claims to reserved rights for, inter alia, maintenance of instream flows, recrea- tion, and stockwaterrng were initially granted by the special master appointed to consider all the claims, but were denied by the New Mexico District and Supreme Courts on appeal, on the basis that those uses were not among the purposes included in the Forest Service's Organic Administration Act, pursuant to which the Gila National Forest was created. The New Mexico Supreme Court drew a distinction between the "primary purposes" for which a federal reservation is created, and "secondary uses" of federal lands that may be permitted or authorized by statute or administrative practice, finding that only the former provides a basis for reserved rights. The New Mexico Supreme Court found the primary purposes of national forest reservations to be limited to the preservation of timber and securing of water flows for public and private uses. Mimbres valley Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 90 N.M. 410, 564 P.2d 615, 617-18 (1977). The United States Supreme Court agreed with both the result and analysis of the New Me~ico Supreme Court. Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, noted that the applica- tion of the reserved right doctrine requires a careful examination of "both the asserted water right and the specific purposes for which the land was reserved" and must rest on the conclusion that "without the water the purposes of the reservation would be entirely defeated." 438 U.S. at 700 (footnote omitted). Such an examination and tailoring of the reserved right is necessary .because the reservation is implied, rather than explicit and because of the history of congressional intent in the field of federal-state jurisdiction with respect to allocation of water." Id. at 701-02. The Court noted that, "[w]here Congress has-expressly addressed the question of whether federal entities must abide by state water law, it has almost invariably deferred to the state law." 47/ Id. at 702 (footnote omitted). 47/ In California v. united States, supra, decided the same cay as New Mex1co, Just1ce Rehnqu1st, agaln speaking for the majority, d1scussed at length the .purposeful and continued deference to state water law by Congress," including principally the Mining Acts of 1866 and 1870, the Desert Land Act and the Reclamation Act of 1902. 438 U.S. at 653-70. - 29 -