WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0093 at 669 n.21. ~/ c. Administrative practice and interpret~tions Because the Supreme Court and Congress have not defini- tively answered many of the questions in the area of federal- state water rights, administrative practice and interpretation by the federal land management agencies have served to fill some of the interstices. We understand that there has never been a uniform policy among the agencies with primary responsibility OVer federal lands regarding the extent to which the federal government should or would comply with state laws and procedures in acquiring water rights or give notice to appropriate state agencies or officials of the water needs and uses of the agency. 59/ Agencies have participated in general stream adjudications, at least since passage of the McCarran Amendment in 1952, 60/ and have litigated water rights in individual cases, bu~have not developed wholly consi.stent policies as to whether they should file all water right claims with state agencies. See Report of Federal Task Force on Non-Indian Reserved Rights at 35 (Government Printing Office 1980) (hereinafter cited as "Task Force Report"). For example, the Forest Service and Fish and wildlife Service, at least since .' 58/ On remand, the District Court found that certain conditions imposed by the California Board on the amount and purposes of water to be appropriated, the times of the year in which water could be appropriated, and the distribution of water outside certain counties were not inconsistent with Congress' purpose in authorizing the New Melones project. Other conditions, for example, those imposing limitations on the use of impounded water for the production of power were rejected as inconsistent with the congressional intent. United States v. California, 509 F. Supp. 867 (E.D. Cal. 19B1). Cross-appeals were filed in the Ninth Circuit. Those appeals have been briefed and argued and are pending decision. United States v. State of California, C.A. Nos. 81-4189 and 81-4309 (appeals docketed April 10, 19B1, and June 5, 19B1). 59/ These agencies include, most importantly, the Department of the Interior, which has jurisdiction over all public domain lands and some reserved lands, such as national parks, refuges, and wilderness areas; the Department of Agriculture, which, through its Forest Service, has jurisdiction over the national forests; and the Department of Defense, which has jurisdiction over military bases and reservations and, through the Army Corps of Engineers, over flood control and navigational public works. 60/ See, e.~., United States v. District Court in and for Water DIvisTOn No.5, 401 U.S. 527 (1971); Colorado River Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). - 37 -