OCR Text |
Show "tion Act and supplementary legislation, must obtain permits and prior- ities for the use of water from the State of Wyoming in the same manner as a private appropriator or an irrigation district formed under the state law. His rights can rise no higher than those of Wyoming* and an adjudication of the defendant's rights will necessarily bind him," In discussing the effect of the Reclamation Act* the Court, in 1935* came to the same decision in California-Oregon Power Company vs. Server Port- land Cement Company - namely, that the Government as owner of the public do- main, had the power to dispose of the water separately and did dispose of it separately to the States. In 1937 this was followed by the U. S, Supreme Court in Ickes vs« Fox ^-9 where it is declared * "The Federal Government, as owner of the public domain, had the power to dispose of the land and water composing it together or separ- ately; and by the Desert Land Act of (March 3) 1377,20 if not before, Congress had severed the land and waters constituting the public do- main and established the rule that for the future the lands should be patented separately. Acquisition of the government title to a parcel of land was not to carry with it a water-right; but all non-navigable waters were reserved for the use of the public under the laws of the various arid-land states." The Court there held that the United States was not an indispensable party defendant* even if it had built a reclamation project which used water from the stream; end, th?.t the ownership of the water right is in the land- owners and not in the United States. The final decision of the Court in the suit over the waters of the North Platte River should definitely dispose of this long-disputed question. The Federal Government unquestionably has•control over the waters of an international stream, in so far as such authority may be needful in the negotiation and ratification of an international treaty concerning use of such waters. It is also probable that the Federal Government has similar authority in carrying out any specific obligation that it incurred in con- nection with its Indian charges with respect to public waters prior to State* hood. State Control over w'ater Resources. - As heretofore stated, it is the theory ancT^blrtention of the States in~the arid region that control of the waters within their boundaries lies exclusively with such States, and most of them have declared, by constitutional provision, or by legislative enact- ment, that such waters are the property of the State or of the public. liost •^California-Oregon Power Company vs. Be-ver Portland Cement Company; 295 tf« S. ll[2, 79 L. Ed. 1356. ^Ickes vs. Fox, 300 U. S, 82, 81 L. Ed. 525, 530. 20Desert Land Act of Harch 3, 1877, Chapter 107, 19 Stat. at L. 377, 1$ U,S,C,A., Section 321. -87- |