OCR Text |
Show 0 Finally, in the 1938 edition the following appears (p. 362): "1. In general.-It is the practice of the Government to make appropriations of water from innavigable streams in accordance with the provisions of State law (sec. 8, act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388). In its brief in Wyoming v. Colorado (259 U. S. 419, 260 id. 1), the Department of Justice took the position that said section 8 is directory but not mandatory, and that the Government need not follow State appropriation laws, as it already is the owner of all the unappropriated water in the innavigable streams of the arid West. However, this point has not been passed upon directly by any court except the United States District Court for Nevada, which in approving the Master's report in the Truckee River water adjudication proceeding, Newlands project, upheld the theory of the Department of Justice. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Nebraska v. Wyoming (295 U. S. 40), California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co. (295 U. S. 142), and Fox v. Ickes (300 U. S. 82), may be inconsistent with the argument advanced by the Department of Justice in the Wyoming v. Colorado case, but the United States was not represented in these three cases. Congress has control over the navigable waters of the United States and appropriations therefrom for irrigation must be approved by Congress (33 L. D. 391; sec. 25, act of April 21, 1904, 33 Stat. 189; act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat. 1045). In some cases water for Indian lands is reserved and is not subject to State law {Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564). |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |