WSP06802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fIt; \ .,f \ 0082 non-reserved water rights theory, we do not believe it is a ro riate to reach a blanket conclus1on,that uQPer eX1sting federal stat r1 ts eX1S exc or reserved riqhts. The reasoning used by the Supreme ourt to osupport federal reserved rights does not dep..nd solely on-a formal rp~PTv~~;nn of lann ~Tnm the public domain. but rather on ~on9rp~~' exercise of ~ constitutional authority such as the Propert or Commerce Clauses cou led w' the Su remac Clause. T erefore. that reasoning is applicable evpn if thPTP h~~ hpp.n ono such reservation., We believe, for example, that the Court's decision in United States v. New Mexico is equally applicable to water necessary to fulfill the pr1mary purposes of a federal statutory scheme where the lands in question have been acquired by the federal government from private ownership, rather than reserved from the public domain, and dedicated to particular federal purposes, such as a nqtional forest, park, or military base. See pp. 77-78 infra. We also believe that it is open to federal-agencies to argue that Congress has established particular mandatory purposes for the management of public domain lands that would be frustrated by the application of state water law, although, as we discuss belOW, the primary federal statutes authorizing management of the public domain appear to provide little basis for that argument. The New Mexico decision leaves virtually no room for arguing, however, that federal agencies can appropriate water without regard to state law if that water is necessary only to carry out a .secondary use" of federal lands, in the terminology of the Court in New Mexico -- i.e., an incidental or ancillary use that is permitted by Congress, but-not within the primary purposes mandated by Congress for the federal lands in question. \ The scope of the federal government's ri hts to una ro riated water-for u e 1n the management of specific federal, lands in the western states, whether characterized as "reserved" or "non~reserved,. can be definitivelv determined only bY a careful examination of the individual federal statutes that ut ent of those ands and their legislative history. and of the potential confl1cts that a be created b a Ii ~ion state laws. We canno und"lrtake that analysis here with respect to all federal statutes governing the use of federal lands, but must leave that task, at least initially, to the individual agencies responsible for administration of those statutes. We outline in this opinion, to the extent EQssible, the leqal standaras ana consid"LaLluns that are applicable to that analysis. and the bases for our conclusion~. II. Background The rights of the federal government to use water in the western states cannot be analyzed solely as a question of - 6 -