reserved water rights doctrine

reserved water rights doctrine

Holds that when the United States withdraws land from the public domain and reserves it for a private purpose, it also withdraws all water rights necessary to support the purpose, including the rights to groundwater if other waters are inadequate. This includes Indian lands and lands owned in the Territories before statehood.The U.S.may sell or assign those rights to others. The reservation allows the government (or persons to whom it sells those rights) to prevent upstream owners from taking water, even if otherwise allowed under state law. Assignees of federal reserved water rights enjoy greater protections and privileges than other citizens of the state.Whether or not there was a reservation is a question of federal law and must be determined in federal court.

References in periodicals archive ?
under federal law, including the federal reserved water rights doctrine.
water rights under the federal reserved water rights doctrine,
state law if the federal reserved water rights doctrine does not apply.
of federal mechanisms, such as the reserved water rights doctrine.
Under present Interior Department policy, any water rights needed for BLM Wilderness areas will be acquired under state law, not by using the federal reserved water rights doctrine.
The court first declined to address whether the reserved water rights doctrine was a title interest of the United States, because the "geographic scope of Title VIII is better determined by use of navigational servitude.
214) Thus, the court proceeded to the second step of the Chevron analysis to address whether DOI's new position - that public lands include navigable waters affected by the reserved water rights doctrine - was a reasonable interpretation of the definition of public lands.
The court last addressed the reserved water rights doctrine.
242) She continued that even if [she] believed it was for [this court] to make this choice,"(243) neither the reserved water rights doctrine, Congress,s Commerce Clause powers to regulate navigable waters, nor the navigable servitude were enough to subject Alaska's navigable waters to ANILCA.
The reserved water rights doctrine was inappropriate because, in her estimation, it only entitled the federal government to reserved water rights if the United States owned the submerged lands over which the navigable waters flow.
The reserved water rights doctrine is a judicial creation first articulated in the Winters case:(11) when the federal government reserves public lands for a particular purpose, it also implicitly reserves sufficient water to achieve that purpose.
This type of needs-based justification is particularly suited to the Indian reserved water rights doctrine because the PIA standard is explicitly based on satisfying the "future as well as the present needs"(96) of the American Indians.