In United States v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court relied on the Organic Act to limit the federally reserved water rights attached to the Gila National Forest Reservation in New Mexico. The Supreme Court construed the Organic Act narrowly, holding that the Act reserved water for timber and watershed protection purposes only. Looking at the Organic Act alone set a detrimental precedent for future federally reserved water rights determinations; prompting future courts to use uniform timber and watershed purposes to determine the implied water rights attached to all national forest reservations. This Article challenges the Court's reliance on the Organic Act and argues in favor of a place-specific analysis to determine implied federally reserved water rights that are attached to national forest reservations. Specifically, this Article argues that courts should look to the place-specific documentation and conditions surrounding each parcel of land in addition to acts of Congress with nationwide scope like the Organic Act. First, courts should look to the place and time specific dedicating instrument used to create the federal land reservation at issue. Second, because each parcel's dedicating instrument may not provide sufficient indicia of intent, where necessary, courts should look outside the instrument used to make the reservation to place-specific physical and historical circumstances surrounding the reservation. The value that each federal land reservation provides has much to do with the unique features provided by each unique location, and should be treated accordingly when determining federally reserved water rights.