Page images
PDF
EPUB

and practices, and the storage, conservation and equitable utilization of waters;

"(2) Agreements or covenants in regard to the maintenance and permanent use of such water, facilities or lands benefited by such facilities;

"(3) Contributions in money, services, materials or otherwise to any operations conferring such benefits."

15. Section 3 of the Water Conservation Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1419, as amended, 16 U.S.C. sec. 590z-1(b) (2) (1952)): "No actual construction of the physical features of a project shall be undertaken unless and until

"(2) the Secretary has found (i) that water rights adequate for the purposes of the project have been acquired with titles and at prices satisfactory to him, or that such water rights have been initiated and in his judgment can be perfected in conformity with State law and any applicable interstate agreements and in a manner satisfactory to him; and (ii) that such water rights can be utilized for the purposes of the project in conformity with State law and any applicable interstate agreements and in a manner sat.isfactory to him."

16. Section 14 of the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act of July 19, 1940 (54 Stat. 779, 43 U.S.C. sec. 618m (1952)): "Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as interfering with such rights as the States had on July 19, 1940, either to the waters within their borders or to adopt such policies and enact such laws as they deem necessary with respect to the appropriation, control, and use of waters within their borders, except as modified by the Colorado River compact or other interstate agreement."

17. Section 1 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, 33 U.S.C. sec. 701-1 (1952)): “(a) The Chief of Engineers shall transmit a copy of his proposed report to each affected State, and, in case the plans or proposals covered by the report are concerned with the use or control of waters which rise in whole or in part west of the ninety-seventh meridian, to the Secretary of the Interior. Within ninety days from the date of receipt of said proposed report, the written views and recommendations of each affected State and of the Secretary of the Interior may be submitted to the Chief of Engineers. The Secretary of the Army shall transmit to the Congress, with such comments and recommendations as he deems appropriate, the proposed report together with the submitted views and recommendations of affected States and of the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Army may prepare and make said transmittal any time following said ninety-day period. The letter of transmittal and its attachments shall be printed as a House or Senate document.

"(b) The use for navigation, in connection with the operation and maintenance of such works herein authorized for construction, of waters arising in States lying wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be only such use as does not conflict with any beneficial consumptive use, present or future, in States lying wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters for domestic, municipal, stock water, irrigation, mining, or industrial purposes.

"(c) The Secretary of the Interior, în making investigations of and reports on works for irrigation and purposes incidental thereto shall, in relation to an affected State or States (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section), and to the Secretary of the Army, be subject to the same provisions regarding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports as prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section for the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. In the event a submission of views and recommendations, made by an affected State or by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to said provisions, sets forth objections to the plans or proposals covered by the report of the Secretary of the Interior, the proposed works shall not be deemed authorized except upon approval by an Act of Congress; and section 485h of title 43 and section 590z-1 of title 16 are amended accordingly."

18. Reservation (c) to the Mexican Water Treaty, United States Treaty Series No. 994 (59 Stat. 1265 (1945)): "(c) That nothing contained in the treaty or protocol shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary of State of the United States, the Commissioner of the United States section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, or the United States section of said Commission, directly or indirectly to alter or control the distribution of water to users within the territorial limits of any of the individual States."

19. The National Parks Act of August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 885, 16 U.S.C. sec. 171-2 (1952)): "Appropriations for the National Park Service are authorized for

(g) Investigation and establishment of water rights in accordance with local custom, laws, and decisions of courts, including the acquisition of water rights or of lands or interest in lands or rights-of-way for use and protection of water rights necessary or beneficial in the administration and public use of the national parks and monuments."

20. Section 208 of the Act of July 10, 1952, authorizing suits against the United States in State courts for the adjudication of water rights (66 Stat. 560, 43 U.S.C. sec. 666 (a) and (c) (1952)): “(a) Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such suit."

[ocr errors][merged small]

United States in any suit or controversy in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the right of States to the use of the water of any interstate stream."

21. Subsection 3(e) of the Submerged Lands Act of May 22, 1953 (67 Stat. 30, 43 U.S.C., sec. 1311(e) (1956 Supp.)): "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or in any way interfere with or modify the laws of the States which lie wholly or in part westward of the ninety-eighth meridian, relating to the ownership and control of ground and surface waters; and the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of such waters shall continue to be in accordance with the laws of such States."

22. Subsection 3 (c) of the Act of July 28, 1954, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct facilities for the Santa Margarita River Project, California (68 Stat. 577): "For the purposes of this Act the basis, measure, and limit of all rights of the United States of America pertaining to the use of water shall be the laws of the State of California: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as a grant or a relinquishment by the United Stats of America of any of its rights to the use of water which it acquired according to the laws of the State of California: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as a grant or a relinquishment by the United States of America of any of its rights to the use of water which it acquired according to the laws of the State of California either as a result of its acquisition of the lands comprising Camp Joseph H. Pendleton and adJoining naval installations, and the rights to the use of water as a part of said acquisition, or through actual use or prescription or both since the date of that acquisition, if any, or to create any legal obligation to store any water in De Luz Reservoir, to the use of which it has such rights, or to require the division under this Act of water to which it has such rights."

23. Section 4(4) of the Act of August 4, 1954 (68 Stat. 667, as amended, 16 U.S.C.A. 1004(4) (1958 Supp.)) relating to Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention: "The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal assistance for the installation of works of improvement that local organizations shall

[ocr errors]

"(4) acquire, or provide assurance that landowners or water users have acquired, such water rights, pursuant to State law, as may be needed in the installation and operation of the work of improvement.'

24. Section 4(b) of the Act of July 23, 1955, providing for multiple use of the surface of tracts of public land (69 Stat. 368, 30 U.S.C. sec. 612(b) (1956 Supp.)): “Provided further, That nothing in sections 601, 603, and 611-615 of this title shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or in any way interfere with or modify the laws of the States which lie wholly or in part westward of the ninety-eighth meridian relating to the ownership, control, appropriation, use, and distribution of ground or surface waters within any unpatented mining claim."

25. Section 7 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 109, 43 U.S.C.A., sec. 620f (1958 Supp.)):

"Subject to the provisions of the Colorado River compact, neither the impounding nor the use of water for the generation of power and energy at the plants of the Colorado River storage project shall preclude or impair the appropriation of water for domestic or agricultural purposes pursuant to applicable State law."

26. Section 4 of the act of July 2, 1956, relating to the administration of Section 9, subsection (d) and (e) of the Reclamation Act of 1939, (70 Stat. 483, 43 U.S.C.A. sec. 485h-4 (1958 Supp.)): "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation, or any vested right acquired thereunder, and the Secretary in carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall proceed in conformity with such laws, and nothing herein shall in any way affect any rights of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream or the waters thereof: Provided, That the right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right."

27. Section 4(b) of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of August 1956 (70 Stat. 1044, 43 U.S.C.A. sec. 422d (b) (1958 Supp.)): "Every such proposal shall include a showing that the organization already holds or can acquire all lands and interests in land (except public and other lands and interests in land owned by the United States which are within the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary and subject to disposition by him) and rights, pursuant to applicable State law, to the use of water necessary for the successful construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and that it is ready, able, and willing to finance otherwise than by loan and grant under this Act such portion of the cost of construction (which portion shall include all costs of acquiring lands, interests in land, and rights to the use of water) as the Secretary shall have advised is proper in the circumstances."

28. Section 202 of the Act of August 28, 1958, setting up a United States Study Commission to formulate a comprehensive plan for the development of certain Texas river basins (71 Stat. 1058):

"SEC. 202. In carrying out the purposes of this title it shall be the policy of Congress to

"(1) recognize and protect the rights and interests of the State of Texas in determining the development of the watersheds of the rivers herein mentioned and its interests and rights in water utilization and control, as well as the preservation and protection of established uses."

29. Section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1958 setting up a United States Study Commission to formulate a comprehensive plan for the development of certain streams in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabam (72 Stat. 1090):

"SEC. 2. In carrying out the purposes of this Act it shall be the policy of Congress to

"(1) recognize and protect the rights and interests of the States in determining the development of the watersheds of the rivers herein mentioned and their interests and rights in water utilization and control, as well as the preservation and protection of established uses."

30. Section 1 of the Act of December 24, 1942, authorizing the Secretary of Interior to purchase lands necessary to carry on water resource measurements (56 Stat. 1086, 43 U.S.C., 36b): "That the Secretary of the Interior may, on behalf of the United States and for use by the Geological Survey in gaging streams, acquire lands by donation or when funds have been appropriated by Congress by purchase or condemnation but not in excess of ten acres for any one streamgaging station. For the same purpose the Secretary may obtain easements, licenses, rights-of-way, and leases limited to run for such a period of time or term of years as may be required for the effective performance of the function of gaging streams: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting or intended to affect or to in any way interfere with the laws of any State or Territory relating to the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water used in irrigation or any vested right acquired thereunder and the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out the provisions of this Act shall proceed in conformity with such laws and nothing in this Act shall in any way affect any right of any State or of the Federal Government or of any landowner, appropriator, or user of water in, to, or from any interstate stream or the waters thereof."

NOTE.-The House has passed H.R. 4483 amending the 1942 act by making its provisions applicable also to underground water storage. It is now pending before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

APPENDIX C: DRAFT OF SUBSTITUTE FOR S. 863, 85TH CONGRESS, SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE, DEFENSE, AGRICULTURE, AND THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, WITH COMMENTS, MAY 13, 1958

SECTION 1. The withdrawal or reservation of surveyed or unsurveyed public lands, heretofore or hereafter established, shall not affect any right to the use of water acquired pursuant to State law either before or after the establishment of such withdrawal or

reservation.

SEC. 2. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as:

(a) Modifying or repealing any provision of any existing Act of Congress requiring that rights of the United States to the use of water be acquired pursuant to State law, to the extent that such provisions are otherwise applicable.

(b) Permitting appropriations of water under State law which interfere with the provisions of international treaties of the United States.

(c) Affecting, impairing, diminishing, subordinating or enlarging (1) the rights of the United States or any State to waters under any interstate compact or existing judicial decree; (2) the obligations of the United States to Indians or Indian tribes, or any right owned or held by or for Indians or Indian tribes; (3) any water right heretofore acquired by others than the United States under Federal or State law; (4) any right to any quantity of water used for governmental purposes or programs of the United States at any time from January 1, 1940, to the effective date of this Act; or (5) any right of the United States to use water hereafter lawfully initiated in the exercise of the express or necessarily implied authority of any present or future act of Congress or State law when such right is intiated prior to the acquisition by others of any right to use water pursuant to State law.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Allott. Senator Kuchel and I know that the Senator from Colorado is a good and faithful member of this committee as well as being a competent lawyer. We are glad to have his comments.

Senator Hickey has to assume another obligation this morning and will return later to present his statement. I recognize now Senator Moss.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. MOSS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your consideration in calling these hearings on the subject of Federal-State relationships in the field of water rights. This matter is of vital importance to the economic growth and development of the West.

In the 86th Congress, one of the first bills I introduced was S. 1416, a bill to recognize the authority of the States relating to the control, appropriation, use or distribution of water within their boundaries, and for other purposes.

I was joined in sponsoring this bill by my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, and by Senator Russell. In that same session of Congress, I also joined Senator O'Mahoney as one of the sponsors of S. 851, a bill to provide that withdrawals or reservations of public lands shall not affect water rights acquired under State laws. This was intended to modify the so-called reservation doctrine as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Pelton case, that has thrown a question over legally acquired rights to the use of water in many of our western streams.

Still a third bill, S. 1592, which would have required Federal activities involved with water in the 17 Western States to be carried out in accordance with State laws, was also introduced in the 86th Congress.

Hearings were held on the House side in 1959 on companion bills to these measures, introduced on the House side, and it became evident that there was an insufficient area of agreement between the positions taken by the Justice Department on the one hand, and the States on the other, to permit legislation to be enacted in the last Congress.

I understand also that this Committee and the Senate have covered this ground in the years before I had the honor to represent the State of Utah here, but were unable to secure enactment of legislation.

Thus, after a great deal of effort it still hasn't been possible to reach any decision as to what type of legislation should be enacted. This is the reason I refrained from introducing my bill this year.

I am very pleased that these hearings are being scheduled, without any preconceived ideas in the form of bills, to explore the whole problem of Federal-State relationships in the field of water rights. I hope that by exploring the basic nature of the problem, without getting involved in arguments about the wording of any particular bill, that we will be able to evolve a practical solution that will provide the protection that our citizens need for their water rights to permit continued advancement of that portion of the economy of the 17 Western States that is based on the use and control of water.

The threat to water rights has been felt so far only in the 17 Western States, which do, however, contain about 60 percent of the total area of the United States. This is because, with a few minor exceptions, these States are arid or semiarid. This has made the economy of these States much more dependent on proper water management than is the economy of the Eastern States.

In every one of the Western States control over the use of water can be a matter of economic life and death to whole communities. Out of this situation over the past hundred years, the appropriation doctrine for administering water rights has been developed, superseding, or superimposed on the basic common law of riparian rights. This has been brought about in each of the States either by the State constitution or by statute based on that constitution.

Every one of the 17 Western States has declared its ownership or control over the appropriation of water for beneficial purposes within its borders. The Congress has recognized these declarations in legislation passed as early as 1866, in the Desert Lands Acts and others. This Federal legislation has consistently been upheld by the

courts.

The Reclamation Act of 1902 specifically provided that water rights for Federal reclamation projects were to be acquired by the Secretary of the Interior under the laws of the State or territory in which the project was located, and required the Secretary of the Interior to proceed in conformity with the State laws in this particular respect. Provisions have been included in a great many other Federal statutes with a view to preventing any conflict between Federal purposes and water rights acquired under State laws.

One of the most important of these in section 1(b) of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, which in effect provided that the use of water for navigation by the projects authorized in that act would be subservient to beneficial consumptive uses of water for municipal, domestic, stock water, irrigation, mining, or industrial purposes in the States lying wholly or partly west of the 98th meridian. These enactments have stood the test of time, and have permitted very substantial investments in water resources development to be made both by the Federal Government. by the States, by local governmental units, and by private individuals, all based on rights acquired under the appropriation doctrine incorporated in the State laws.

It is only some of the recent court decisions that have thrown the situation with respect to Federal-State water right conflicts into confusion. In particular, the Pelton case has thrown a question over all water rights in streams arising on federally reserved land. This case has been relied on in pleadings made by the Department of Justice in a number of other cases, and has thrown a shadow over the entire appropriation doctrine of the Western States.

There is considerable doubt as to whether development of the magnitude we have seen in the past with State, local, and private funds can continue unless this situation is clarified. With the increase in Federal activity in water resources which seems to be necessary if our national goals and objectives are to be met, the need for clarification becomes even greater. In fact, I would venture to predict that as water demands increase further, with a relatively constant water

« PreviousContinue »