Court Opinion

ID: 9797699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:27:28.826759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:48.613903
License: Public Domain

Justice KIDWELL,
specially concurring.
While I agree with the rationale and the detailed analysis of the majority opinion, I write separately because I believe it is necessary to go further and emphasize that the implied reservation of water rights doctrine should have no application in this case. It is well settled law that the canon of legal construction known as the implied reservation of water rights doctrine is not applicable where the legislation expressly provides for federal exemption from state water law, as is the case here. In reviewing the actual wording of the Wilderness Act, and in conjunction with the stated Congressional intent, it is my opinion that no implied water rights were intended to be reserved by the drafters of the Wilderness Act. Rather, the history, the record, and the words of the Act, amply demonstrate that the intention of the drafters was to expressly disclaim a reservation of water for the named Wilderness Areas.
This express disclaimer was not present in the four cases that gave rise to the legal concept of a federal implied water right. In the cases of Winters, Arizona, Cappaert and New Mexico, cited by the majority, Congress had failed to provide any express language as to its intent to reserve water. To be precise, Winters was based on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, ratified by Congress on May 1, 1888, Arizona was based on the Colorado River Indian Reservation, created by Congress March 3, 1965, Cappaert was based on a Proclamation of the President on January 17, 1952, under the American Antiquities Preservation Act, making it part of the Death Valley National Monument and New Mexico was based on the Gila National Forest, established under the Organic Administration Act of 1897. In each, the Court felt it was necessary to create an implication of Congressional intent due to Congress’s silence on the issue of reserved water. This legalistic determination of implied water rights has traditionally been employed by the courts only when the intent of Congress cannot be discerned from the clear language of the statute. As brought out by the majority, this is not the case in the matter currently before this Court. However, while I agree with the majority that Congressional intent cannot be derived from prior case law, I believe that Congressional intent can be derived from the language of the Act itself.
Section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act provides that “[njothing in this chapter shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.” Wilderness Act, Pub.L. No. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890, § 4(d)(7) (1964) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1133(d)(6)). This section is self evident that Congress was not silent concerning *928the issue of reserved water rights, and thus, any application or consideration of the implied reservation of water doctrine is unnecessary.
A review of congressional expressions surrounding this section reveal that there were two primary concerns that were addressed by the addition of section 4(d)(7). First, by adding the word “claim,” Congress provided that federal agencies were not exempt from state water laws. Second, by adding “denial,” Congress legislated that no existing federal water rights would be changed or denied by the Act.
The history of the Wilderness Act indicates that to alleviate concerns that the Act would interfere with existing state water laws, the California Department of Water Resources recommended a disclaimer be added to the wilderness bill. Senator Neuberger of California proposed the “insertion of an added special section which would provide that ‘nothing in this act shall constitute an express or implied claim on the part of the United States for exemption from State water laws.’ ” 104 Cong. Rec. 6344 (1958). In response to California’s recommendation, the Department of Justice suggested the bill include the words “or denial” to ensure that none of the then-existing federal water rights would be affected by the passage of the bill. When section 4(d)(7) was finally enacted by the 88th Congress, it contained both the “claim or denial” language. Wilderness Act, Pub.L. No. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890, § 4(d)(7) (1964) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1133(d)(6)).
It has been suggested that section 4(d)(7) was put into the Wilderness Act as a means to maintain the status quo of State and Federal water rights at the time of the enactment of the Wilderness Act. This theory, in my opinion, is contrary to the words themselves. However, even if we assume for the discussion that this theory is correct, it does not change the conclusion that the application of the federal reserved water rights doctrine is not appropriate where Congress has expressly discussed, and then refused to reserve, water rights. There has been no precedent cited for the anomalous idea that the application of the federal reserved water rights doctrine is appropriate where the Act establishing the Federal reservation was not silent as the issue of a reservation of water. In addition to the language of the Act itself, there are an abundance of legislative comments which clearly support the conclusion that section 4(d)(7) was intended as a disclaimer of Federal reserved water rights. Although set out in the majority opinion, I reiterate these comments to amplify the majority’s holding and emphasize my points concerning 4(d)(7).
Senator James Murray of Montana stated that “[i]t has been made clear that nothing in the legislation may be construed to modify existing water law.” 104 Cong. Rec. 11,557 (1958). When Senator Humphrey introduced the revised wilderness bill he noted:
Paragraph 5, the last in this section, contains language vital to colleagues from the West. When the first wilderness bill was being discussed, some of its opponents charged that its enactment would change existing water laws and would deprive local communities of water, both domestic and irrigation. Although this was certainly not the intention of the sponsors, it has seemed necessary to insert a short sentence to remove any doubts. The sentence added says:
Nothing in this act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.
104 Cong. Rec. 11, 555 (1958).
In response to criticism of the wilderness bill by one of Colorado’s Senators, Senator Frank Church of Idaho stated:
[T]he junior Senator from Colorado has argued that the bill constitutes some sort of impairment with respect to the development of water resources within the areas affected by the bill. He has pointed out, quite correctly, the importance of water impoundments — dams, power generators, and reclamation projects — to the West. But, Mr. President, I suggest that there are two portions of the bill which adequately assure the West continued water development, and I submit that even within the wilderness system the bill does not constitute any impediment whatever.
109 Cong. Rec. 5892 (1963).
This was also the same language used by Senator Church in drafting the Central Ida*929ho Wilderness Act. In an attempt to alleviate fears over federal control of state water, Senator Church emphasized,
To underscore the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho over the water resources and fish and game within the wilderness areas, the provisions of the 1964 act which relate to these issues are also repeated.
126 Cong. Rec. 17,180 (1980).
Senator Church’s use of the word “jurisdiction” in connection with the “provisions of the 1964 Act” is particularly significant in determining his understanding of the purpose of section 4(d)(7). Clearly the jurisdiction of the State relates to its ability to regulate the waters found within its borders, not some notion that the State is powerless due to a Court inferred Federal water right.
Therefore, I concur with the majority in the determination that Congress did not intend to reserve a federal water right for the Wilderness Act. This conclusion is supported not only by the rationale contained in cases from the Supreme Court, but also in the express disclaimer contained in section 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act.