|
<br />of habitat conservation plans. In response to a
<br />question, he suggested that where there is a "clear-cut
<br />conflict," ESA requirements probably override
<br />interstate compact allocations, in his opinion. If such
<br />a situation arises, he noted, a negotiated settlement
<br />should be reached between affected states to share
<br />the loss that would occur. He declined to express an
<br />opinion concerning whether ESA could override an
<br />international treaty obligation.
<br />
<br />On other issues, Mr. Leshy opined that federal land
<br />management agencies need to find a way to protect
<br />their water rights where new applications for water are
<br />made which may threaten the rights, but where a
<br />McCarran Amendment proceeding will not resolve the
<br />problem. He called for a joint federal/state effon to
<br />craft a coherent federal policy to enable federal
<br />agencies to voice their objections in this context
<br />without subjecting themselves to state jurisdiction
<br />generally, because of Justice Depanment concerns.
<br />With respect to the issue of federal payment of filing
<br />fees in state couns, he suggested that the U.S. v.
<br />Idaho decision (WSW #990) and federal budget
<br />concerns make it unlikely states will see financial relief,
<br />Regarding Indian water rights, he added that federal
<br />policy continues to suppon negotiated settlements,
<br />but again the problem is money.
<br />
<br />Mr, Leshy also mentioned the interesting internal
<br />debate that took place between federal agencies over
<br />state authority under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
<br />401 as it relates to hydropower licensing by the
<br />Federal Energy Regulatory Commission C'NSW
<br />#1022). In the end, the Justice Depanment filed a
<br />brief urging the U.S. Supreme Coun to uphold the
<br />Washington Supreme Coun decision recognizing the
<br />state's authority to set minimum instream flows as a
<br />condition for water quality cenification under Section
<br />401. Finally, Mr. Leshy mentioned that Interior will
<br />soon release proposed regulations for the Lower
<br />Colorado River Basin to allow limited water marketing
<br />between states, He emphasized, however, that the
<br />scheme will be confined to that basin, and will not be
<br />intended as a precedent for other areas.
<br />
<br />Alan Murakami, a member of the review
<br />commission on Hawaii's state water code, also spoke
<br />to the full Council, describing the history of Hawaii's
<br />water law, Legislation was enacted in 1987 to begin
<br />to resolve longstanding conflicts, settle water rights
<br />claims, and establish a permit system. However, given
<br />
<br />considerable political pressure for home rule, counties
<br />remain largely responsible for controlling water use,
<br />with state regulation only in critical areas. The review
<br />commission was created last year and has identified
<br />20 major issues, including protection of Native
<br />Hawaiian water rights, An interim repon was released
<br />on December 15. A final repon with recommendations
<br />to improve the water code will be submitted to the
<br />legislature by the end of this year. Mr. Murakami
<br />answered a number of questions covering the
<br />Hawaiian Homestead Act, watershed management,
<br />water transfers and leasing, protection of instream
<br />flows, and water for federal environmental purposes.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />At the Council's Water Resource Committee
<br />meeting Tom Donnelly, Executive Vice-President of the
<br />National Water Resources Association, addressed
<br />various issues. He encouraged the Council to
<br />consider supponing H.R. 3392, to reauthorize the Safe
<br />Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and H.R, 1490, to
<br />reauthorize ESA. The committee reviewed state water
<br />use fees, ground water recharge, drought, and Bureau
<br />of Reclamation changes. Of note, the committee
<br />amended its 1994 work plan to include a continuing
<br />item on water conservation, The Water Quality
<br />Committee discussed SDWA and CWA reauthorization.
<br />The Committee requested Council staff to send a letter
<br />to Senate staff reaffirming the Council's suppon for
<br />Section 602 of S. 1114, which clarifies state authority
<br />to set conditions to protect designated uses under
<br />CWA Section 401. The Committee also discussed
<br />national wetlands policy, watershed management, and
<br />CWA Section 518. The Legal Committee reviewed
<br />events related to federal/state hydropower licensing
<br />issues, and a number of cases and other actions
<br />dealing with wilderness water rights, water transfers,
<br />general adjudication fees, and the ESA, Of note,
<br />Council staff asked for comments by February 4 on a
<br />draft discussion paper on improving consultation
<br />between federal entities and state water managers
<br />under ESA. The Executive Committee reviewed the
<br />Council budget and the schedule for future meetings,
<br />The Council will meet in Seattle, Washington on April
<br />13-15; Cody, Wyoming, on August 17-19; and San
<br />Antonio, Texas, on December 7-9. The Committee
<br />discussed an April 1995 Washington, D.C. seminar, an
<br />October 1994 water management symposium, and a
<br />February 1994 WGA watershed planning workshop.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The State of Hawaii was an excellent host. Council
<br />members enjoyed a tour of Maui and other activities.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of .
<br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Nonh Dakota, Oregon,
<br />South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member states Montana and Oklahoma
<br />
|