Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. coordinating aIl1l:rlg all federal, state and local agencies, <br />federally-recognized Indian tribes and ron-yoveI11lllental entities involved <br />in water-related manayerrent prograI15. <br />If enacted substantially as proposed, this legislation will l1'aterially aid <br />the states in respoooing to several of the Task Force recamendations, par- <br />ticularly those concerning instream flows and ground water quantification. <br />The bill \<,Quld also prevent states fran using Title III funds for <br />"litigation costs." H.R. 2610, S 308(3); S. 4BO, S 306(c). This limitation <br />\<,Quld ccx:Iify the WN(;'s current limitation on dispensing grants under Title <br />III. <br /> <br />C. Federal Reserved Water Rights <br />It nay seem surprising to those unfamiliar with water law and policy <br />to learn that, nore than t\<,Q centuries after the founding of the rEpublic, <br />I.1aJ1Y details in the relationship of state and federal government over water <br />rights for federal land mana<Jement remain in dispute. In the last t\<,Q decades <br />in particular, a good deal of acrimony and antayonism has been generated <br />over this issue -- much of it arising fran the federal reserved water right. <br />Originally recognized by the I::iuprerre Court in oonstruing an Indian <br />tribe's right to water under an agreement with the United States,~ the <br />right was rot expressly recoynized as applying to other, non-lnaian federal <br />reservations until 1963 !?I although, as the I:'Ublic Land Law rEview Coim:IiSSiOIl <br /> <br />~ Winters v. United states, 207 U.S. 564 (190B). <br />Y Arizona v. California, 373 u.s. 546, 595-601 (1963). <br /> <br />-14- <br />