Laserfiche WebLink
<br />total available water supply.23/ (3) 'rhe oon-consLlIptive uses prir.arily <br /> <br />involve instream flows, which preserve the water for appropriation under <br /> <br />state law at points dcwnstream fran the federal reservation.W (4) Federal <br /> <br />agencies' assertions of water rights are, and will oontinue to be, tenpered <br /> <br />by political reality; i.e., full extension of the reserved rights doctrine <br /> <br /> <br />will usually oot be asserted if a substantial threat to rights under state <br /> <br /> <br />law is likely. 'Ibis fact is acknowledged inplicitly in both the President's <br /> <br />June 6, 1978 water policy and his July 12, 1978 directive, which together <br /> <br />call on federal agencies to consult closely with states and water users, to <br /> <br />~hasize negotiation whenever possible, and to use a "reasonable standard" <br /> <br />for asserting federal water rights which reflects true federal needs rather than <br /> <br /> <br />"theoretical and hypothetical needs based on the fUll legal extension of all <br /> <br />p;>ssible rights." <br /> <br />~reover, where federal water needS other than trPse covered by reserved <br /> <br />rights are involved, confoIming to state laws will generally be sufficient to <br /> <br />protect federal interests llecause nvst state laws are, as the NWC noted, <br /> <br />"consistent with and appropriate for nost Federal oojectives."~ (Protection <br /> <br />of instream flaws, of cwrse, may be a significant exception in sane states.) <br /> <br />W Water rights for the irrigation program of the Water and Pc7.Yer Resources <br />Service (fonnerly the Bureau of Reclamation) involve large consll\lptive uses <br />but nust, by express congressional directive, ordinarily be ootained under <br />state law. ~ 43 U.S.C. S 383; California v. United States, 438 u.s. <br />645 (1978).- <br /> <br />24/ See note 18, supra. <br />25/ r-w:: Report, supra oote 7, at 463. <br /> <br />-26- <br />