Opinion ID: 1309497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Proprietary Rights

Text: (7a) The Board initially contends the United States does not own federal land in the sense that would allow it to claim riparian rights as an ordinary proprietor under state law. The United States, it is argued, holds land in its sovereign capacity; its sovereign authority derives exclusively from, and is limited to, the powers delegated by the federal Constitution; therefore, the federal government may not exercise proprietary rights that arise under state law. The argument is unmeritorious. Private and government ownership of land obviously differ in certain fundamental respects. (8) Unlike private property, government land usually cannot be condemned or seized, or obtained by adverse possession. A private owner holds property under local law; the government holds and controls land by virtue of its own fiat and may change the rules of ownership at will. (See Trelease, Government Ownership and Trusteeship of Water (1952) 45 Cal.L.Rev. 638, 649-653.) In this respect, to speak of government ownership is really to describe a variety of governmental powers over the regulation and control of the property it holds. Not surprisingly, therefore, a close reading of United States Supreme Court decisions involving water rights disputes between the states and the federal government reveals that the court has consistently premised its holdings on the sovereign rights, rather than the proprietary interests, of the United States. For example, the Supreme Court has recognized that under the federal Constitution's commerce clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3) the United States has superior power to protect the navigability of a river from state action (the so-called navigation servitude; see United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. (1899) 174 U.S. 690, 703 [43 L.Ed. 1136, 1141, 19 S.Ct. 770]), and under the property (U.S. Const., art. IV, § 3, cl. 2) [9] and supremacy (U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2) clauses the Supreme Court has held the states may not deprive the federal government of water sufficient to accomplish the primary purposes of a federal reservation (the reserved rights doctrine discussed earlier; see United States v. New Mexico, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 698 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1055]; Arizona v. California, supra, 373 U.S. at pp. 597-598 [10 L.Ed.2d at p. 576]; Cappaert v. United States, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 138-142 [48 L.Ed.2d at pp. 533-536]). Nevertheless, it has never been established that the federal government may not, in addition to its sovereign prerogatives, exercise the common law rights of an ordinary proprietor under state law. (9) To the contrary, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the [federal] government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor, to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such land precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. ( Camfield v. United States (1897) 167 U.S. 518, 524 [42 L.Ed. 260, 262, 17 S.Ct. 864].) In Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) 426 U.S. 529, 540 [49 L.Ed.2d 34, 44, 96 S.Ct. 2285], the court reaffirmed this principle, holding that the Property Clause gives Congress the power over the public lands `to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights in them....' [Citation.] Under the powers granted by the United States Constitution, the court stated,  Congress exercises the powers both of a proprietor and of a legislature over the public domain.  ( Ibid., italics added.) (7b) In recent decisions, moreover, the high court has reaffirmed the long-established principle that Congress not only may defer, but nearly always has deferred, to state law in determining rights to water on federal lands. (See California v. United States, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 653-670 [57 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1024-1035]; United States v. New Mexico, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 701-702 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058].) As the court observed in New Mexico: Where Congress has expressly addressed the question of whether federal entities must abide by state water law, it has almost invariably deferred to the state law. (438 U.S. at p. 702 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058].) The New Mexico decision is particularly instructive for our purposes here. In that case, as noted earlier, the United States claimed rights to the water of the Rio Mimbres River in the State of New Mexico to maintain minimal instream-flows for fishing and recreation purposes in the Gila National Forest. That claim (unlike the United States claim made here) was based on federal law  the reserved rights doctrine  under which federal reserved lands are entitled to sufficient water to accomplish the purposes for which the lands were reserved. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the claim, holding that the United States was entitled under federal law to only so much water as was required to accomplish the specific or primary purposes of the national forests, which did not include wildlife preservation. (438 U.S. at pp. 700, 706-709 [57 L.Ed.2d at pp. 1057, 1060-1062].) Such a narrow construction of the reserved rights doctrine was compelled, the court held, by a congressional policy  enunciated in dozens of federal statutes dating from the Mining Act of 1866  of deferring to state law. (438 U.S. at p. 702, fn. 5 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058].) For example, the court noted that the National Park Service Act of 1946 had specifically authorized appropriations for the [i]nvestigation and establishment of water rights in accordance with local custom, laws and decisions of courts, ... for the use and protection of water rights necessary or beneficial in the administration and public use of the national parks and monuments. ( Id. at pp. 702-703 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058].) Moreover, [t]he agencies responsible for administering the federal reservations have also recognized Congress' intent to acquire under State law any water not essential to the specific purposes of the reservation. ( Id. at p. 702 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058].) The Forest Service was no exception, the court noted, observing that the Forest Service Manual itself states: The rights to use water for national forest purposes will be obtained in accordance with State law.  ( Id. at p. 703, fn. 7 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1059] italics added.) Thus, as observed in New Mexico, [w]here water is only valuable for a secondary use of the reservation ... there arises the ... inference that Congress intended, consistent with its other views, that the United States would acquire water in the same manner as any other public or private appropriator.  (438 U.S. at p. 702 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 1058], italics added.) Although the State of New Mexico recognized only appropriative rights, the underlying principle of deference to state law logically extends to any water right recognized under local law  including riparian rights. Indeed, in a case concerning federal water rights at Camp Pendleton, California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically held that under California law the United States had riparian rights in acquired lands, i.e., lands acquired by the federal government from a nonfederal owner by purchase, condemnation, gift or exchange. (See California v. United States (9th Cir.1956) 235 F.2d 647, 656.) The United States may similarly claim such rights in lands which it holds as the original owner. There is no merit to the Board's contention that the United States Constitution precludes the federal government from acquiring riparian rights under California law.