OCR Text |
Show way over the public domain, has been able to exercise considerable control over the use of water in the public-land States.* especially where its inter- ests, due to reclamation or forestations were involved* The reclamation of Federal lands was really the basis of the Reclamation Act of 1902 under which the Bureau of Reclamation operates. 5 As a result of its construction acti- vities, this Bureau has exercised indirectly* a certain degree of control over the development and administration of the waters of interstate streams on which some of its projects are located. - The question of State vs. Federal ownership of the unappropriated waters of the public-land States has long been debated by proponents of both theories, who, in support of their views, have cited numerous decisions of the Supreme Court touching upon this important matter. One theory ? known as the "California Doctrine," holds that, when the Federal Government originally acquired the territory which now constitutes the State of California., it became not only the owner of the lands, but also the owner, in a strict and proprietary sense, of the right to the use of the waters appurtenant to these lands; and further that the conference of State- hood passed political powers and not proprietary rights. The leading case in support of this theory is that of Lux vs. 'Haggent ^ Under the opposing theory* generally known as the "Colorado Doctrine," the Federal proprietary title to water is denied* and all rights to water vdthin the confines of the State are held to be vested in the State for the use of the public. Under the theory of State sovereignty and State Law* this doctrine is written into the Constitution of the State of Colorado^ as '.veil as in these of several other States of the arid West. The proponents of this doctrine contend that the Congress of the United States recognized and accepted such doctrine in the Enabling Acts under which the States came into the Union. Although, on numerous occasions (notably in Kansas vs. Colorado?)3 the Federal Government has asserted its claim to the ownership of all of the un- appropriated waters of the public-land. States of the Ivest, the question as to whether the Supreme Court of the United States has definitely spoken in regard to this important natter is probably not open to debate. The United States Supreme Court permitted the Government to file a petition in inter- vention of Nebraska vs. Wyoming, in which Colorado was an imp leaded defen- dant; such action would not constitute a final adjudication of the rights of the Fsderal Government to remain in the suit. On Wyoming's motion to dismiss in this case, ' the U. 3* Supreme Court, in 1935> expressly declared that the water belongs to the State: "The motion asserts that the Secretary of the Interior Is an in- dispensable party. The bill alleges, and we know as matter of law, that the Secretary and his agents, acting by authority of the Reclama- 15?Le>clamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 383. ^Lu-x vs. Haggen, 69 California 255 (1886). ^itebraska vs. Wyoming, 295 u» s» k0, 79 L. Ed. 1289 at p. 1291« -86- |