Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/128/case.html
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 16:59:15
Document Index: 572778629

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', '§ 533', '§ 533', '§ 321', '§ 1345', '§ 666', '§ 1345']

Cappaert v. United States (full text) :: 426 U.S. 128 (1976) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Cappaert v. United States
Cappaert v. United States 426 U.S. 128 (1976)
U.S. Supreme CourtCappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976)Cappaert v. United StatesNo. 74-1107Argued January 12, 1976Decided June 7, 1976*426 U.S. 128CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Held: As of 1952, when the United States reserved Devil's Hole, it acquired by reservation water rights in unappropriated appurtenant water sufficient to maintain the level of the underground pool to preserve its scientific Page 426 U. S. 129 value, and thereby implement the Presidential Proclamation. Pp. 426 U. S. 138-147.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Page 426 U. S. 131
Devil's Hole is a deep limestone cavern in Nevada. Approximately 50 feet below the opening of the cavern is a pool 65 feet long, 10 feet wide, and at least 200 feet deep, although its actual depth is unknown. The pool is a remnant of the prehistoric Death Valley Lake System, and is situated on land owned by the United States since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, 9 Stat. 922. By the Proclamation of January 17, 1952, President Truman withdrew from the public domain a 40-acre tract of land surrounding Devil's Hole, making it a detached component of the Death Valley National Monument. Proclamation No. 2961, 3 CFR 147 (1949-1953 Comp.). [Footnote 1] The Proclamation was issued under the American Antiquities Preservation Act, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. § 431, which authorizes the President to declare as national monuments "objects of historic or scientific interest Page 426 U. S. 132 that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States. . . ."
The Proclamation provides that Devil's Hole should be supervised, managed, and directed by the National Page 426 U. S. 133 Park Service, Department of the Interior. Devil's Hole is fenced off, and only limited access is allowed by the Park Service.
When the water is at the lowest levels, a large portion of a rock shelf in Devil's Hole is above water. However, when the water level is at 3.0 feet below the marker or higher, most of the rock shelf is below water, enabling algae to grow on it. This, in turn, enables the desert fish (cyprinodon diabolis, commonly known as Devil's Hole pupfish), referred to in President Truman's Proclamation, to spawn in the spring. As the rock shelf becomes Page 426 U. S. 134 exposed, the spawning area is decreased, reducing the ability of the fish to spawn in sufficient quantities to prevent extinction.
The State Engineer declined to postpone decision. At the conclusion of the hearing, he stated that there was no recorded federal water right with respect to Devil's Hole, that the testimony indicated that the Cappaerts' pumping would not unreasonably lower the water table or adversely affect existing water rights, and that the Page 426 U. S. 135 permit would be granted, since further economic development of the Cappaerts' land would be in the public interest. In his oral ruling, the State Engineer stated in part that "the protest to the applications that are the subject of this hearing are overruled, and the applications will be issued subject to existing rights." The National Park Service did not appeal. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 533.450 (1973).
The Cappaerts answered, admitting that their wells draw water from the same underlying sources supplying Page 426 U. S. 136 Devil's Hole, but denying that the reservation of Devil's Hole reserved any water rights for the United States. The Cappaerts alleged that the United States was estopped from enjoining use of water under land which it had exchanged with the Cappaerts. The State of Nevada intervened on behalf of the State Engineer as a party defendant, but raised no affirmative defenses.
The District Court then held that, in establishing Devil's Hole as a national monument, the President reserved appurtenant, unappropriated waters necessary to the purpose of the reservation; the purpose included preservation of the pool and the pupfish in it. The District Court also held that the federal water rights antedated those of the Cappaerts, that the United States Page 426 U. S. 137 was not estopped, and that the public interest required granting the injunction. On April 9, 1974, the District Court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law substantially unchanged in a final decree permanently enjoining pumping that lowers the level of the water below the 3.0-foot level. 375 F.Supp. 456 (1974).
Id. at 318. The Court of Appeals further held that neither the Cappaerts nor their successors in interest had any water rights in 1952, nor was the United States estopped from asserting its water rights by exchanging land with the Cappaerts. In answer to contentions raised by the intervenor Nevada, the Court of Appeals held that "the United States is not bound by state water laws when it reserves land from the public domain," id. at 320, and does not need to take steps to perfect its rights with the State; that the District Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the state courts to resolve this claim; and, that the state administrative procedures granting the Cappaerts' permit did not bar resolution of the United States' suit in Federal District Court. Page 426 U. S. 138
Nevada argues that the cases establishing the doctrine of federally reserved water rights articulate an equitable doctrine calling for a balancing of competing interests. However, an examination of those cases shows they do not analyze the doctrine in terms of a balancing test. For example, in Winters v. United States, supra, the Court did not mention the use made of the water by the upstream landowners in sustaining an injunction barring Page 426 U. S. 139 their diversions of the water. The "Statement of the Case" in Winters notes that the upstream users were homesteaders who had invested heavily in dams to divert the water to irrigate their land, not an unimportant interest. The Court held that, when the Federal Government reserves land, by implication, it reserves water rights sufficient to accomplish the purposes of the reservation. [Footnote 4]
In determining whether there is a federally reserved water right implicit in a federal reservation of public land, the issue is whether the Government intended to reserve unappropriated, and thus available, water. Intent is inferred if the previously unappropriated waters are necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created. See, e.g., Arizona v. California, supra at 373 U. S. 599-601; Winters v. United States, supra at 207 U. S. 576. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that the 1952 Proclamation expressed an intention to reserve unappropriated water, and we agree. [Footnote 5] The Page 426 U. S. 140 Proclamation discussed the pool in Devil's Hole in four of the five preambles, and recited that the "pool . . . should be given special protection." Since a pool is a body of water, the protection contemplated is meaningful only if the water remains; the water right reserved by the 1952 Proclamation was thus explicit, not implied. [Footnote 6]
The National Park Service Act provides that the "fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations" is Page 426 U. S. 141
Petitioners in both cases argue that, even if the intent of the 1952 Proclamation were to maintain the pool, the American Antiquities Preservation Act did not give the President authority to reserve a pool. Under that Act, according to the Cappaert petitioners, the President may Page 426 U. S. 142 reserve federal lands only to protect archeologic sites. However, the language of the Act, which authorizes the President to proclaim as national monuments
No cases of this Court have applied the doctrine of implied reservation of water rights to groundwater. Nevada argues that the implied reservation doctrine is limited to surface water. Here, however, the water in the pool is surface water. The federal water rights were being depleted because, as the evidence showed, the "[g]roundwater and surface water are physically interrelated as integral parts of the hydrologic cycle." C. Corker, Groundwater Law, Management and Administration, National Water Commission Legal Study No. 6, p. xxiv (1971). Here the Cappaerts are causing the water level in Devil's Hole to drop by their heavy pumping. See Corker, supra; see also Water Policies for the Future -- Final Report to the President and to the Congress of the United States by the National Water Commission 233 (1973). It appears that Nevada itself may recognize the potential interrelationship between surface and groundwater, since Nevada applies the law of prior appropriation to both. Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 533.010 et seq., 534.020, 534.080, 534.090 (1973). See generally F. Trelease, Water Law -- Resource Use and Environmental Protection 457-552 (2d ed.1974); C. Meyers & A. Tarlock, Page 426 U. S. 143 Water Resource Management 553-634 (1971). Thus, since the implied reservation of water rights doctrine is based on the necessity of water for the purpose of the federal reservation, we hold that the United States can protect its water from subsequent diversion, whether the diversion is of surface or groundwater. [Footnote 7]
Petitioners in both cases argue that the Federal Government must perfect its implied water rights according to state law. They contend that the Desert Land Act of 1877, 19 Stat. 377, 43 U.S.C. § 321, and its predecessors [Footnote 8] severed nonnavigable water from public land, subjecting it to state law. That Act, however, provides that patentees of public land acquire only title to land through the patent, and must acquire water rights in nonnavigable water in accordance with state law. California Page 426 U. S. 144 Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142, 295 U. S. 162 (1935); see Morreale, Federal-State Conflicts Over Western Waters -- A Decade of Attempted "Clarifying Legislation," 20 Rutgers L.Rev. 423, 432 (1966). [Footnote 9] This Court held in FPC v. Oregon, 349 U. S. 435, 349 U. S. 448 (1955), that the Desert Land Act does not apply to water rights on federally reserved land. [Footnote 10] Page 426 U. S. 145
Federal water rights are not dependent upon state law or state procedures, and they need not be adjudicated only in state courts; federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 to adjudicate the water rights claims of the United States. [Footnote 11] Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 807-809. The McCarran Amendment, 66 Stat. 560, 43 U.S.C. § 666, did not repeal § 1345 jurisdiction as applied to water rights. 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 808-809. Nor, as Nevada suggests, Page 426 U. S. 146 is the McCarran Amendment a substantive statute, requiring the United States to "perfect its water rights in the state forum like all other land owners." Brief for Nevada 37. The McCarran Amendment waives United States sovereign immunity should the United States be joined as a party in a state court general water rights' adjudication, Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. United States, supra at 424 U. S. 808, and the policy evinced by the Amendment may, in the appropriate case, require the United States to adjudicate its water rights in state forums. Id. at 424 U. S. 817-820.
Finally, Nevada, as intervenor in the Cappaerts' suit, argued in the Court of Appeals that the United States was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel from litigating its water rights claim in federal court. Nevada bases this conclusion on the fact that the National Park Service filed a protest to the Cappaerts' pumping permit application in the state administrative proceeding. Since we reject that contention, we need not consider whether the issue was timely and properly raised. We note only that the United States was not made a party to the state administrative proceeding; [Footnote 12] nor was the United States in privity with the Cappaerts. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 402 U. S. 320-326 (1971). When the United States appeared to protest in the state proceeding, it did not assert any federal water rights claims, nor did it seek to adjudicate any claims until the hydrological studies as to the effects of the Cappaerts' pumping Page 426 U. S. 147 had been completed. [Footnote 13] The fact that the United States did not attempt to adjudicate its water rights in the state proceeding is not significant, since the United States was not a party. The State Water Engineer's decree explicitly stated that it was "subject to existing rights"; thus, the issue raised in the District Court was not decided in the proceedings before the State Engineer. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, supra at 402 U. S. 323. Cf. United States v. Utah Constr. & Min. Co., 384 U. S. 394, 384 U. S. 422 (1966).