WSP12627 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It':t..'1:'{f :?}-~~ff:~-&~g:t~-';:.~~ ~:.:.s.~;.}~~ 'I ,.~~ ~'-": 000707 * * * Of course, the relevant considerations stated in cases concerning rights to water must be adapted to this new context. Nevertheless, the general principles apply. I would direct the Master to consider a range of factors including, but not limited to, the harm that must be incurred by Oregon and Washington in terms of harvest forgone in order to allow a given number of fish to reach Idaho, cf. Nebraska v. Wyoming, supra (considering the loss of water in transit); the contribution of each State to preservation of the habitat necessary for spawning; the contribution of each State to the preservation of the proper habitat necessary for the survival and development of fish during passage; the investment of each State in programs to mitigate losses and enhance the runs, such as hatcheries and transportation programs. 0- ~'.'_:';.:i Most recently, the Court concluded in Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1, 11-13 (1995), that it is~:t clearly appropriate in an equitable apportionment case to consider evidence of impacts of an:J upstream state's proposed actions on downstream "wildlife and wildlife habitat" and related;;\;~ "environmental injury:" .. C. Wyoming's second exception takes issue with the Master's stated intention to consider a broad array of downstream interests in passing on Nebraska's claims, and to hear evidence of injury not only to downstream irrigators, but also to wildlife and wildlife habitat. ...' Consideration of this evidence, Wyoming argues, would run counter to our denial of two earlier motions to amend filed by Nebraska. . . by which it expressly sought modification of the decree to make Wyoming and Colorado share the burden of providing instream flows necessary to preserve critical wildlife habitat, and . . . an apportionment of nonirrigation-season flows. Wyoming also suggests that allegations of injury to wildlife are as yet purely speculative and would be best left to other forums. Wyoming's arguments are not persuasive. To assign an affirmative obligation to protect wildlife is one thing; to consider all 'downstream effects of upstream development when 'assessing threats to equitable apportionment is quite another. As we have discussed above, Nebraska II makes it clear that modification of the decree (as by enjoining developments on tributaries) will follow only upon a "balancing of e'quities," . . . and that Nebraska will have to make a showing of "substantial injury" before we will grant it such relief. ... There is no warrant for placing entire categories of evidence beyond Nebraska's reach when it attempts to satisfy this burden, which is far from insignificant. Nor does our resistance to Nebraska's efforts to bring about broad 308