WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

." .' 0081 reliance is misplaced. More importantly, when the question is considered as one of competinq state and federal requlatory- iurisdiction. rather than ownership of the water -- as we believe it must -- Solicitor Krulitz's opinion fails to qive adequate consideration to the attern of con re ional deference to sta e water law, Wh1Ch the Supreme COllrt: h"" rp"ognized as ~ritical in analyz1nQ federal riqhts to water on federal lands. See California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 648-63 (1978)1 united States v. New Mex1co, 438 U.S. 696, 70l-02 ( 1978). We believe that the history of federal-state relations with respect to water rights in the western states and Congress' weighing of the competing federal and state interests establish a presumption that is directly opposite to that asserted by Solicitor Krulitz: in the absence of evidence of ~ specific congressional intent to preempt state water laws, ([:) the presumption is that tederal agenc1es can acqu1re wa~er rights only in accordance with state law. The mere assignment of land management functions to a federal agency, w1thout more, does not create any tederal r1qhts to unappropr1ated wa~er necessary to carry out those functions. ,It is important to keep in mind, however, that this re- sumpt10n 1S re uttable. T ere 1S no question that the federal government has the constitutional authority to acquire rights to whatever water is necessary to manaqe tederal lands. either throuqh purchase or condemnation of existing water riqhts or ex clear conqressional action. The critical question is what evidence of con ressional inten' sar to rebut th .in erence that state law is controlling. The Supreme Court has addressed that Question in its recent decisions in Cal1fornia v. United States and united States v. New Mexico, albeit 1n llm1ted cont"lxts. We believe that the Court's reasoning in those two cases provides ~ne relev"nt: frampwnrk for analysis here. Read together, those cases su est that con ressional intent to reempt state contro over unappropriated water in the western states w1ll be found only if cond1t10ns 1mposed under s~a~e law on e use or dis Sl a e era a ency conflict W1 specific statutory directives authoriz1ng a e eral proJect or d1rect1ng the use of federal landS, or 1t application of state law WOUld prevent the tederal agency trom accompIlsnIng specific ur oses mandated b Con ress tox- Lhe fede-rcrr-lcmds- n Question. The scope of the federal r1ghts t at may e asserted under those c1rcumstances is lim1ted ~o water minimally necessary tn "arry out the relevant statutory directives or purposes. @ \ .4~, f'DJ~? Although we believe that the water rights that can be asserted by federal agencies without regard to state law are far more limited than those available under Solicitor Krulitz's - 5 -