OCR Text |
Show Page 4 November UTAH FARM BUREAU 197 Federalization Of Western Water Rights Topic Of Discussion from all lands in the annual average natural run-of- f series of court decisions on Water Rights have Eleven Western States. (PLLRC Water Resources succeeded in opening the federalist floodgates that Study, Mar. 1969) may eventually sink the rights of all Western states to their water rights. The United States Supreme Court Federal Water Needs Pelton Dam decision of 1955 indicated that the reserThe current water requirements of federal land vation of federal lands Reserved Rights to use or apwaters originating on such lands. agencies is estimated to be 2,261,000 acre-fea carried court The Federal the ruled, Such federal water rights, proximately 1 percent of the total run-ofpriority as of the date of the reservation. Thus, the long agencies estimate that their water needs by the year to a total of court testing of the Implied Reserve Water Doctrine 2.000 will increase by 369,000 acre-fehas finally became a reality. This sequence of court 2.630.000 A. F. rulings reverses historical congressional acts that clearly stipulated water resources are to be allocated (PLLRC Study, Mar. 1969) by territorial or state law. "Any lingering doubts about the existence of a In 1964 there were 23 million acres of irrigated lands Reserve Water Doctrine were removed in the Supreme in the eleven states and at least 95 percent are a decision of 1963. From Courts on water from the federal lands. dependent earlier Indian cases decisions and in partial reliance The PLLRC Commissions study estimated that the on the Pelton Dam decision, the Court sustained the investment on these irrigated lands was Beaver county FB officers for 1972 are left to right: Ronnie Bradshaw conclusion that an implied reservation of sufficient agricultural Sec. Kay Harris Vice president, Gark Carter President, Arlene Carter about $12 billion as of 1968. water to satisfy reasonable requirements of reserved Women's president. lands did exist. Additional Dangers: Farm Bureau members met at the Ponderosa Cafe in Beaver recently Since that date 1963 various federal agencies no to elect officers, enjoy a delicious banquet and hear LeGrand Jarmen longer comply with state water law in acquiring water Water requirements on the federal lands are not UFBF Director of Field Services discuss Farm Bureau and related for use on reserved lands. There is fear that the doc at present and the federal agencies have project activities. trine will be expanded to disrupt all established state large will not be great through the needs that 2000, Elected to new terms as officers of the Beaver County Farm Bureau water and appropriate without compensation except for Fish and Wildlife Service lands.year rights But the were Clark Carter, President, Ray Harris, Vice President, Arlene water rights considered to be secure under state law. can who estimate the new or is, accurately question Carter, Chairman of Womens Committee, and Ronald Bradshaw, uses on water federal lands in the unanticipated Water Law Doctrines Secretary. future? Beaver county Farm Bureau has the distinction of increasing in size Population pressures may force certain types of by the largest percentage of any county during 1970 and has made good The Reservation doctrine strikes at the very core of to relocate in the open spaces in the West. gains this year. The officers are anxious to work with Farm Bureau Western appropriation law. There are two major water industry which are burdened with the problems of air Industries programs and thus improve the economics of agriculture in Beaver law systems: Riparian and Appropriative. In general, and waste disposal may seek locations County. the principal feature of Riparianism is that rights in pollution, noise, con jested areas. The federal water arise from, and only from, ownership of land away from the population be sought for such developments. Other which adjoins or underlies a stream. Riparian rights lands may advances which require water - such as technological cannot be lost by mere disues and the water cannot be the secondary recovery of oil or development of the used (xi other lands. Riparian holders are usually oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming or Utah subject to relative reasonable use, without regard to potential alter Federal water needs in the dates of initiation of use cannot diminish the might dramatically A et f. et Arizona-Califomi- -- buy they future. Potentially, the problems of the reservation doc-- . trines are major. Predictions of future water needs The Riparian system was not generally adopted in made in 1969 are not adequate to forecast how many or the arid West because the need for water was usually how soon, or in what form, these problems will unrelated to use on land adjacent to the sources of multiply. water. The Western States adopted the system of Appropriation, wherein land ownership is irrelevant to Public Land Law Review Commission Recommends: acquisition of water rights. A right is obtained by taking water and applying it to a beneficial use, The PLLRC recommended (no. 56 page 146) that the without limitation on its place of use. As between reservation doctrine should be limited by Congress in competing appropriators, priority in time and at least four ways: beneficial use are determinative. There are wide variations among the states in these (1) Current and future water needs claimed by federal two doctrines and in the ways they are applied to agencies should be formally established. various situations. The Federal Reservation Doctrine, (2) Procedures for contesting in court the therefore, is contrary to western water rights on the Reasonableness of such claims should be provided. principles of congressional acts, as well as ap- (3) Water requirements for the future should be expropriation to beneficial use. pressly reserved. (4) Compensation should be awarded where inReserve Doctrine terference results with claims valid under state law before the decision in Arizona v. California. (1962-196Reservation Doctiine is the label generally given for water rights that are not dependent upon or The PLLR Commission has made an invaluable generated by laws of states. There are, in fact, six contribution by its study of the reserve water distinguishable reservation doctrines. doctrine issue. The evidence assembled indicates that All six of the doctrines are subject to undeterminate the federal reservation doctrine does have substance degrees of overlapping. All have in common an un- and congressional clarification is necessary. The certain character arising from an origin by im- Commissions four-poirecommendation to limit the plications, rather than express provisions, either of Federal reservation and resolve the controversy is federal legislation or of constitutional federal powers. considered by many Western and National students of water rights as a reasonable compromise of the conFederal Water Yields troversy. Unless this Federal water claim is resolved 12 billion The Public Land Law Review Commissions water dollars of Agricultural Investment is in jeopardy plus resources study reported that the amount of water the real that Washington D. C. may subarising on federal lands is estimated to be 223,141,000 stantial possibility of the West by management its control expand acre-feannually, which is 61 percent of the total of western Water Resources. supply. Morgan County Meet left to right around the table Jan Turner Pres. Conducting Alfred Bohman, Secretary Eileen Jones, Eva Johnson, Paul Turner, David Wilde, and Dee Waldron. Meeting in the Morgan Court House October 21, Paul Morgan, President conducted one of the few Farm Bureau meetings that concluded business by 9:00 p.m. It wasnt because there was no business to discuss or problems to solve but Mr. Turner using training he likely received while serving in leadership capacities in the FFA program he caused action to be taken on matters of importance in an appropriate manner and the meeting concluded on time. Ann Rust served the leaders with donuts she made at home and apple juice. The donuts were of excellent quality, and were appreciated by all attending. A final meeting to establish policy for Morgan County was set for November 4, 1971 in the Court House. All county members are invited to attend this meeting. 3) in-dep- th nt et Total Average Annual Natural Run-o- ff (million acre-fee- t) Average Annual Natural Run-of- f From Federal Lands (Million Acre-fee- t) Natural Run-of- f for Federal Lands in percent of State Total Rich county review Issues left to right: Robert Rex, Roy Hoffman, William Dee Cornla, Robert Johnson, Nathell Hoffman, and La Rue Johnson. Rich County leaders met October 14 to review farm and ranch problems and make recommendations that could be accepted by the county as policy and that would be important for review by the voting delegates November 18 at the state convention. tfathell Hoffman reported- her attendance at the USU womens workshop and some of the matters presented there for discussion. - (PLLRC Study, Mar. 1969) Annual Consumptive Use on Federal Lands In Thousands Acre-Fe- et |