Arizona high court rules that Congress did not reserve water rights for state trust lands

Congress did not intend to reserve water rights for state trust lands, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in settling a question important to resolving claims to the Little Colorado and Gila rivers. State officials had argued that when Congress granted the land to Arizona for universities, government buildings, prisons and other institutions, it established a trust similar to creating reservations for American Indian tribes and, therefore, implied reserved water rights. The high court said land grants are different in that they are not the product of negotiated agreements or treaties. It also rejected Arizona's argument that Congress meant to reserve water rights for state trust lands because lawmakers were aware that water was needed to make use of the arid land. "Support of the common schools and other specific institutions undoubtedly serves the public interest," the court wrote in its ruling. "It is not, however, a federal purpose." Arizona became a state in 1912, carved out of what once was New Mexico territory. Two-thirds of the more than 9 million acres of state trust lands lie in the river basins. The state had filed motions for partial summary judgment in two cases — one in Maricopa County Superior Court to resolve Gila River claims and the other in Apache County Superior Court for the Little Colorado River. The state appealed a determination from the water judge overseeing both cases that federal reserved water rights don't apply to state trust lands. Supreme Court Justice A. John Pelander, writing for the court, said Congress compensated Arizona for the relatively low value of the land granted by giving the state more land. Although a federal law that set requirements for Arizona and New Mexico territories to become states imposes enforceable trust obligations on Arizona, it doesn't allow the federal government to make policy decisions on how state institutions are run, the court said. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled similarly in a case involving rights to the San Juan River...more