WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,I 0097 use, and its measure is the amount of water reasonably necessary for that use. By contrast, reserved rights have priority as of the date of the reservation, regardless of when or whether the water was put to use, and extend to all water reasonably necessary for current and future uses. See, ~.~., Cappaert v. United States, supra, 426 U.S. at 138. Solicitor Krulitz rested his opinion on an asserted federal proprietary interest in unappropriated waters in the western states and the federal government's superior right under the Supremacy Clause to make use of water in furtherance of its constitutional powers. See Comment, "Federal Non- Reserved vlater Rights," 15 Land-ar1d Water L. Rev. 67, 74-75 (1980). He started with the premise that, through cession from foreign nations, the United States acquired ownership of the lands that now comprise the western states and ownership of all rights appurtenant to those lands, including "the power to control the disposition and use of water on, under, flowing through or appurtenant to such lands." Krulitz Op. at 563, 575. He asserted that under the Property Clause of the Constitution, the United States has plenary power to control its property; no interest in that property may be acquired, by the states or private parties, "in the absence of an express grant from Congress. . . ." Solicitor Krulitz concluded that "absent that grant or consent, [the property] continues to be held by the United States." 651 rd. (citing United States v. Grand River Dam Authority, 363 U.S. 229, 235 (1960); Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 404-05 (1917)). solicitor Krulitz buttressed this conclusion with a Supremacy Clause argument: Federal control over its needed water rights, un- hampered by compliance with procedural and substantive state law, is supported by the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine that federal 651 However, Solicitor Krulitz disavowed statements made by a-prior Interior Department Solicitor that the United States is the "owner of unappropriated non-navigable water on the public domain" as "broad and irrelevant to the right of the United States to make use of such water." He stated that "concepts of 'ownership' of unappropriated waters are not determinative in federal-state relations in non-reserved water rights." Krulitz Op. at 613. Solicitor Krulitz's partial disavowal of the proprietary basis for federal claims is somewhat confusing and seems inconsistent with his statements that the federal government has a retained "proprietary interest" in waters not otherwise appropriated pursuant to state law and "plenary power" over unappropriated waters on federal lands by virtue of the Property Clause. See, ~.~., id. at 563, 575. --- - 41 -