Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O1l1:J30 <br /> <br />.. . <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />legal underpinnings of their reserved rights. This should, along with <br />this report, move much of the discussion away from theory and more <br />toward reality. <br />Another reason for the lack of progress on this Issue has been <br />the lack of congressional action to address the Issues In any systematic <br />way.~/ A third reason has been the fal lure of the states, with <br />some relatively recent exceptions, to adjudicate water rights <br />within their borders. Even where water rights adjudications have been <br />Instituted, the parties to the state proceedings have not always moved <br />to join federal agencies as parties. Even when joinder Is sought, a <br />further problem has been that the United States usually objects to joinder <br />In the state proceedings. <br />The Task Force notes, however, that this situation Is changing. <br />Over-appropriation of streams, Increasing competition for water and In- <br />creasing difficulty with the tack of defined water rights, Including <br />those of the Federal Government, have led several western states, I.e., <br />Colorado, Montana, Wyoming and Arizona, to enact statutes In recent years <br />which establish new or overhaul previous systems for adjudicating water <br />rights. There Is also emerging a trend toward statutory deadlines for <br />registration or filing of water rights. Kansas, Arizona, Montana and <br />possibly other states have enacted laws establishing timetables for <br />assertion of certain kinds of water rights. The momentum Is unmistakably <br /> <br />21/ See pp. 28-29 below. <br />- - <br /> <br />-20- <br />