WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.0095 were directed to expeditiously establish and quantify federal reserved rights. In response to this initiative, Solicitor Krulitz of the Depa,rtment of the Interior issued a forraal opirrion in June 1979, covering both "reserved" and "non-reserved" water rights under statutes authorizing the Department of the Interior to manage federal lands. As we discuss in the next segment of this opinion, Solicitor Krulitz articulated the non-reserved water rights theory of the Deparbnent of the Interior, stating that the federal government had a right to use water for "con- gressionally authorized uses" irrespective of any reservation of land. Solicitor Krulitz's opinion provoked a maelstrom in the western states and an almost immediate decision by Interior Secretary Andrus not to implement segments of the Krulitz opinion except in very limited circumstances. Secretary Andrus' announcement was followed in January 1981 by an opinion by Solicitor Krulitz's successor, Solicitor Clyde O. Martz, restricting the application ,of the Krulitz opinion. In September 1981, the current Solicitor, William H. Coldiron, issued an opinion repudiating the legal basis and conclusions of the Krulitz opinion. Since these opinions ' have shaped much of the recent debate on the scope of federal water rights, ~/ we will review them in detail here. ~ (Continued) exchange, condemnation, or appropriation under state law. Task Force Report, supra, at 3-6. This last recommendation was "grounded on the belief that, to the extent neither existing state law nor existing federal reserved rights provide an adequate base for federal water needs to carry out congressionally- established management objectives, in some cases a new reserved right might be created and in other cases a federal non- reserved right might be asserted." The Task Force urged, however, "that neither course be followed except where it is absolutely essential to carry out congressionally-mandated management objectives." Task Force Report at 66-67. The Report did not address in any detail the legal basis for assertion of any federal non-reserved water rights. 63/ Solicitor Krulitz's opinion, in particular, has been the subject of considerable comment. See, e.g., The Western States Water Council, "Response to the Solicitor's Opinion on Federal Water Rights of June 25, 1979" (Oct. 25, 1979); Note, "Federal Nonreserved Water Rights," 4 8 Un iv. of Chi. L. Rev. 758 (l981); F. Trelease, nUneasy Federalism -- State Water Laws and National Water Uses," 55 Wash. L. Rev. 751 (1980); Comment, nFederal Non-Reserved Water Rights," 15 Land and Water Review L. Rev. 67 (1980); Note, "Federal Acquisition of Non-Reserved Water Rights after New Mexico,n 31 Stan. L. Rev. 885 (1980). Solicitor COldiron's opinion has been the subject of at least one recent comment. See Gould, "Solicitor Rejects Non-Reserved Rights,. 14 Water Law Newsletter No.3 (Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation 1981). - 39 -