Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l2 <br />INTERSTATE COMPACTS ARE A VIABLE MECHANISM FOR STATES TO AGREE <br />COLLECTIVELY ON HOW WATER SHOULD BE USED IN A BASIN. SINCE <br />COMPACTS ARE RATIFIED BY THE CONGRESS, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT <br />STATES ACTING IN CONCERT CAN EXERCISE SOME OF THE TRADITIONAL <br />CONTROLS OVER WATER USE WHILE AVOIDING THE RESTRICTIONS THE <br />COURTS PLACED ON INDIVIDUAL STATES. <br /> <br />WE DO NOT SUPPORT A FEDERAL LAW OR A SINGLE FEDERAL WATER POLICY <br />THAT DICTATES HOW STATES MANAGE WATER. IN THE 50 STATES THERE <br />ARE 50 DIFFERENT WATER LAW SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN CREATED TO <br />CONFRONT THE TREMENDOUS VARIETY OF WATER RESOURCE CONDITIONS IN <br />THIS COUNTRY. NO SINGLE SET OF LAWS CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE <br />UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE MANY STATES. WE WOULD OPPOSE ANY MOVE <br />IN CONGRESS TO ENACT A NATIONAL WATER LAW WHICH FAILED TO <br />RECOGNIZE THE PRIMARY ROLE OF STATES. <br /> <br />THE COURTS, IN CALLING GROUNDWATER (ALL WATER FOR THAT MATTER) <br />AN ARTICLE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OPENED THE WAY FOR POSSIBLE <br />FEDERAL INTRUSION. THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOT INCLINED TO INTRUDE. <br />THE PRESENT CONGRESS DOES NOT SEEM SO INCLINED EITHER. RATHER, <br />WE HOPE THAT THE COURT CASES WILL PROVIDE THE INCENTIVE FOR <br />STATES TO DEVELOP AGGRESSIVE, AFFIRMATIVE AND COMPETENT WATER <br />MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS SO NO VOID WILL EXIST WHERE THE FEDERAL <br />GOVERNMENT CAN INTRUDE. OF COURSE, STATES WILL NEED TO WORK UNDER <br />NEW RULES. IT IS CLEAR THAT NO STATE CAN VIOLATE THE COMMERCE <br />CLAUSE WITHOUT RISKING SOME LEGAL ACTION AGAINST IT, <br /> <br />C-17 <br />