Opinion ID: 2638777
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The United States Must Quantify the Minimum Amount of Water Necessary to Fulfill the Purpose of the Reservation.

Text: The purpose of the establishment of the Hells Canyon National Recreational Area is set forth in section 1(a) of the HCNRA Act. That section states that the Hells Canyon National Recreational Area was established: [T]o assure that the natural beauty, and historical and archeological values of the Hells Canyon area and the seventy-one mile segment of the Snake River between Hells Canyon Dam and the Oregon-Washington border, together with portions of certain of its tributaries and adjacent lands, are preserved for this and future generations, and that the recreational and ecologic values and public enjoyment of the area are thereby enhanced.... HCNRA Act § 1(a), 16 U.S.C. §§ 460gg 1(a) (emphasis added). The question presented is what quantity of water is expressly reserved absent any statutory indication? This case falls closest to Cappaert in which the President reserved a pool to preserve a rare breed of fish. See Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976). The Supreme Court determined that the reservation carried with it the right to sufficient water in the pool to sustain the fish and fulfill the purposes of the reservation. However, the reservation was limited to appurtenant water sufficient to maintain the level of the pool to preserve its scientific value and thereby implement Proclamation No. 2961. Cappaert at 147, 96 S.Ct. at 2073-2074, 48 L.Ed.2d at 539. The reasoning of Cappaert applies to this case. The SRBA district court ruled that the United States holds an express reserved water right to all unappropriated flows originating in tributaries located within the Hells Canyon National Recreational Area with a priority date of December 31, 1975. However, the question of the amount of water necessary to fulfill the purpose of the reservation involves a factual inquiry. The SRBA district court ruled without allowing the parties to develop a factual record. Consequently, the factual determination is not supported by competent evidence. The SRBA district court's decision as to the existence of an expressly reserved water right is affirmed, but the case is remanded to the SRBA district court for quantification of the amount necessary to fulfill the purposes of the reservation.