United States v. New Mexico
57 L. Ed. 2d 1052, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 43, 438 U.S. 696 (1978)
Rule of Law:
The implied reservation of water rights for federally reserved lands is limited to the amount of water necessary to fulfill the primary purposes for which the land was withdrawn, not for secondary uses subsequently authorized.
Facts:
- The Rio Mimbres originates in and flows through the Gila National Forest in New Mexico.
- In 1899, the United States established the Gila National Forest by withdrawing lands from the public domain.
- The river serves as a substantial water source for private irrigation and mining uses downstream from the forest.
- In a statewide water adjudication process, the United States claimed it had implicitly reserved water rights from the Rio Mimbres when it created the forest.
- The United States asserted these reserved rights were for multiple purposes, including maintaining instream flows for fish preservation, wildlife, aesthetics, recreation, and for stockwatering.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of New Mexico filed a complaint-in-intervention in a private lawsuit, seeking a general adjudication of water rights in the Rio Mimbres in a New Mexico state district court.
- The United States was joined as a defendant pursuant to the McCarran Amendment and asserted a claim for federal reserved water rights for the Gila National Forest.
- The state district court held that the United States' reserved rights were limited and did not include water for recreation, aesthetics, wildlife preservation, or cattle grazing.
- The United States (appellant) appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico (appellee) affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the implied reservation of water doctrine grant the United States water rights in a national forest for the purposes of recreation, aesthetics, wildlife preservation, and stockwatering?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The implied reservation of water rights extends only to the amount of water necessary to fulfill the primary purposes for which a federal reservation was created. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 established national forests for two primary purposes: securing favorable conditions of water flows and furnishing a continuous supply of timber. The Court found no evidence in the legislative history that Congress intended to reserve water for recreation, aesthetics, wildlife preservation, or stockwatering. These are secondary uses, and if the government needs water for them, it must acquire those rights under state law like any other appropriator. The later Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 broadened the administrative purposes of forests but did not retroactively expand the scope of water rights reserved at the time of the forest's creation.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No, in part, and yes, in part. While the Organic Act of 1897 does not support a reserved right for recreation or stockwatering, it does support a right for wildlife preservation. The Act’s language authorizing the establishment of forests 'to improve and protect the forest' should be read as a third, independent purpose. A forest is not merely timber and watershed; it is a complex ecosystem that includes the wildlife within it. Therefore, protecting the 'forest' inherently includes preserving the fish and animals that inhabit it, which requires a reservation of sufficient water to sustain them. The majority’s narrow view misinterprets Congress's intent and envisions a 'lifeless' forest, which is inconsistent with historical and modern ecological understanding.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the scope of the federal implied reservation of water rights, often called the Winters doctrine, particularly for national forests. By limiting reserved rights to the original, primary purposes of the reservation, the Court elevated the role of state water law in allocating scarce water resources in the West. This ruling forces federal land management agencies to participate in state water appropriation systems to secure water for modern, secondary uses like recreation and wildlife, rather than relying on a priority claim dating back to the land's reservation. The case underscores a judicial preference for explicit congressional action over implied federal powers in the field of water rights.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. New Mexico (1978)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"