WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6102 solicitor Coldiron analyzed the question of congressional - intent in much the same terms as did the Supreme Court in California v. United States and United States 'v. New Mexico -- decIsions WhICh SoliCItor Coldiron concluded "defInItively and directly addressed" the issue of federal non-reserved water rights. Coldiron Op. at 9. Thus, solicitor Coldiron interpreted the land management statutes of the nineteenth century, the Reclamation Act of 1902, and other pUblic land use statutes to express congressional recognition of the practical importance of local control of water resources and a general policy of deference to state water law. Id. at 6-7. Solicitor Coldiron asserted that only two exceptions have been recognized to this general deference to state water law: the federal navigation servitude and the federal reserved right. Id. at 11. He concluded, drawing on language from California and New Mexico, that Congress has given the states broad power to provIde for the administration of water rights, which can be infringed by the federal government only where necessary to accomplish the original purpose of a congressionally mandated reservation of land, or to protect the navigation servitude. Therefore, in analyzing land management statutes, the presumption should be that "the United States and its agencies must acquire water rights in accordance with state substantive and procedural law unless necessary for the original purpose of a reservation" (or, presumably, unless incident to the federal government's navi- gation servitude). Id. at 12. solicitor Coldiron did not address the question of what evidence of congressional intent is necessary to over- come the presumption that state law applies. He concluded, without an analysis of specific statutory schemes such as that undertaken by Solicitor Krulitz and Solicitor Martz, that "there is an insufficient legal basis for the creation of what has been called federal 'non-reserved' water rights. . . There is no federal 'non-reserved' water right." Coldiron Op. at 12. This conclusion suggests that, in Solicitor Coldiron's opinion, no existing federal land management statute contains a congressional directive of sufficient specificity to overcome the presumption of deference to state law, and that, unless and until Congress enacts statutes specifically authorizing non-reserved rights or repeals the land management statutes that preserve control over water rights in the states, the only water rights available to federal agencies outside of state law are reserved rights or rights necessary to preserve the navigation servitude. Id. .' - 46 -