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 ?
The federal reserved water rights doctrine, first recognized by the
reserved water rights doctrine appeared to be expansive.
its application of the federal reserved water rights doctrine. In 1987,
The decision represents a significant expansion of the federal reserved water rights doctrine, usurping Alaskas sovereign right to make decisions about how Alaskan waters should be managed to promote the best interests of Alaskans, says Attorney General Lindemuth.
(64.) I have found at least forty-five law review articles focusing primarily on aspects of the reserved water rights doctrine that have been published in the last twenty years.
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. Because water controversies are sure to occur, it is expected that each BLM Wilderness law will have special language on water rights.
reserved water rights doctrine. Part II summarizes the statutes,
under federal law, including the federal reserved water rights doctrine.
The court next sought to determine which navigable waters should be considered public lands.(213) The court stated that neither ANILCA nor its legislative history addressed this question.(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.(215)
The court last addressed the reserved water rights doctrine. It began with a short exposition of basic principles.(229) The court pointed to the fact that the United States's authority to implicitly reserve unappropriated, appurtenant waters necessary to fulfill the purposes of any federal land reservation is derived from the Property Clause and the Commerce Clause.(230) The court addressed the United States's past statutory reservations of vast parcels of Alaskan land for federal purposes, and surmised that, as a consequence, the United States implicitly reserved ...
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.(12) These rights, like riparian rights, are appurtenant to the land and remain in existence through periods of nonuse.(13) But, like prior appropriation rights, these reserved rights have a priority date which marks when the federal government reserved the land.(14) In times of shortage, seniority allows the reserved water rights holder to take water while junior holders with later-acquired state rights take nothing.
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.