WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0101 not intend to provide an independent statutory basis for claims to water that would be inconsistent with the substantive requirements of state law. Martz Op. at 257-58.- Without discussion, he concluded that "[t]he same analysis and conclusion is equally applicable to the Taylor Grazing Act." Id.]1/ 3. Coldiron Opinion The current Solicitor of the Interior, William H. Coldiron, issued an opinion on September 11, 1981, concluding that "there is no federal 'non-reserved' water right" and disavowing the Krulitz and Martz opinions to the extent they asserted that such rights exist. See Dept. of the Interior Solicitor's Opinion M-36914 (Supp.-yj, "Non-Reserved Water Rights -- United States Compliance with State Law," (Sept. 11, 1981) ("Coldiron Op."). Solicitor Coldiron acknowledged that Congress has the power under the Commerce and property Clauses to control the disposition and use of water appur- tenant to lands owned by the federal government, and that, under the Supremacy Clause, it is ~unlikely that state law could preclude reasona~le water use by a federal agency if Congress specifies a particular federal usage." Coldiron Op. at 5. 72/ However, Solicitor Coldiron observed that Congress can also defer to state control over water resources, and that therefore the crucial question is whether Congress intended to delegate that authority to the states. 71/ Solicitor Martz also noted that the Department of the Interior had previously decided, as a matter of policy, to refrain from asserting non-reserved rights, except if specifically apprcved in individual cases by the Assistant Secretary or Secretary of the Department, or if the Department was required to submit all claims for water rights in litigation. Martz predicted that in the future most federal water rights would be founded on appropriation or purchase. Martz Op. at 254. 72/ Although Solicitor Coldiron's analysis is rooted primarily Tn the Supremacy Clause, he also found a basis for congressional authority in the United States' ownership of unappropriated water on the public domain. He suggested in his opinion that the United States' power over unappropriated non-navigable water located on the public domain "arises from retention of federal property, including the streams and lakes thereon at the time of statehood," and characterized the pattern of ownership of waters with the western states as follows: "[w]hen the various western states were admitted to the Union, the title to the beds and waters of the navigable streams and lakes passed to the new states, with the United States retaining title to the non-navigable waters on the public domain." Coldiron Op. at 5. - 45 -