Opinion ID: 105321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: inapplicability of the desert land act of 1877 and related acts.

Text: The State of Oregon argues that the Acts of July 26, 1866, [17] July 9, 1870, [18] and the Desert Land Act of 1877 [19] constitute an express congressional delegation or conveyance to the State of the power to regulate the use of these waters. The argument is that these Acts preclude or restrict the scope of the jurisdiction, otherwise apparent on the face of the Federal Power Act, and require the consent of the State to a project such as the one before us. The nature and effect of these Acts have been discussed previously by this Court. The purpose of the Acts of 1866 and 1870 was governmental recognition and sanction of possessory rights on public lands asserted under local laws and customs. Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453. The Desert Land Act severed, for purposes of private acquisition, soil and water rights on public lands, and provided that such water rights were to be acquired in the manner provided by the law of the State of location. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 295 U. S. 142. See also, Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 611-616. It is not necessary for us, in the instant case, to pass upon the question whether this legislation constitutes the express delegation or conveyance of power that is claimed by the State, because these Acts are not applicable to the reserved lands and waters here involved. The Desert Land Act covers sources of water supply upon the public lands . . . . The lands before us in this case are not public lands but reservations. Even without that express restriction of the Desert Land Act to sources of water supply on public lands, these Acts would not apply to reserved lands. It is a familiar principle of public land law that statutes providing generally for disposal of the public domain are inapplicable to lands which are not unqualifiedly subject to sale and disposition because they have been appropriated to some other purpose. United States v. O'Donnell, 303 U. S. 501, 510. See also, United States v. Minnesota, 270 U. S. 181, 206. The instant lands certainly are not unqualifiedly subject to sale and disposition . . . . Accordingly, it is enough, for the instant case, to recognize that these Acts do not apply to this license, which relates only to the use of waters on reservations of the United States.