WSP07268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001135 248 OREGON LAW REVIEW [Vo\.:16 beneficial use so that certificates of appropriation might then be issued.8!! But, pending this final proof, the Pelto" decision was handed down. Shortly tl1ereafter, the commanding officer of the installation advised the state engineer of Nevada that, in view of the Pellol1 decision, no final proofs would be filed. The position of the Navy Department was simply that, since the ground waters were on reserved lands of the United States, no compliance with state law was necessary. In testi- mony before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hugh A. Shamberger, state engineer of Nevada, demonstrated the practical effect of the Navy's position: Hawthorne, a town with a popu- lation of 2,000, occupies an area of about a mile square. The town is completely surrounded by the larger depot reservation of the Navy. The town has two water-supply wells, one with a priority ahead of the Navy's six wells and the other with a later priority. The water conH'S from the same basin, the same underground source. The Navy has recently drilled two additional wells, on which, of course, no filing under state law can be anticipated. Thus the Navy may well, if it so desires, draw from this basin whatever increased amounts of water it may need for its operation, wholly without regard to the needs of Hawthorn", and regardless of the priorities of the Hawthorne wells. The effect could well be to deprive the town, on which the Navy presumably depends for civilian services of various kinds, including schools, produce, utilities, housing for Navy and civilian personnel, churches, transportation, and miscellaneous business and professional services, of water without which it cannot continue to exist.90 Mr. Shamberger also made the point that subsequent non-Navy ap- propriators of the ground water could well assert rigl1ts superior to the rights of the Navy asserted in defiance of state law. Thus the mischief spreads far beyond what may have been contemplated in the Pelton decision. This optional nullification of Nevada water law, asserted by the Navy Department, may be only the beginning. Nevada has, of course, challenged the Navy action by canceling the temporary permits and the matter is now in the Federal District Court of Nevada.91 ~ 'L r (3) In recent years the city of Denver has spent millions in tax money to secure additional water supplies without which this largest 89 The charge for filing these final proofs would have been $6.00. NEV. COMPo LAWS sec. 7959 (Hillyer ]929). 90 Heari"gs Before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Rec/amatian of the SeMle Committee 0>> h,lerior and Insular Affairs. on S. 863, 84th Cong., 2d Scss. 62, 63, 71 (1956). S. 863, the Water Rights Settlement Act, was a general bill which would have required state approval of all Federal projects or projects of licensees under Federal laws insofar as the use of waters on navigable as well as nonnavigable streams is concerned. The bill failed to pass. 91 There is apparently no dispute as to the facts. The matter is being submitted to the court on briefs, beginning March I, 1957. All briefs are to be filed on or before] nly I, 1957.