PUB00144 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Western States Water Council Legal Committee Washington, DC March 27, 2006 accounts that I've heard since that time things have been running fairly well. I know that in the State of Utah our relationship is very similar to the relationship we have with the State of Colorado. I'd like to believe our relationship with the state ofIdaho is much more cooperative at this point. In the case ofIdaho we had some salmon issues we had to resolve. Matt McKeown: I've noticed over the last five years a sort of an evolution within the approach involving water rights negotiations between the federal government and states. When I started working on the Snake River Adjudication in the mid-1990s with the state ofIdaho, I think most of us agreed to the mutual policy of trying to accomplish things in ways that are less complicated and I can now see both sides are willing to do that. I've had that experience quite recently where we were negotiating a new delivery contract where the hitch was on what the shortage language would look like. What I was amazed to see is we both worked on this issue with water users. I think this approach facilitates sort of a policy based decisionmaking debate that was talked about and it's much easier for a lawyer in a case. Rod Kuharich: David, as you know, my name is on that agreement with the Forest Service and there is a very similar agreement pending with the Bureau of Land Managment now. Under the category of no good deed goes unpunished. I would like to refer to a situation that's now developing in Colorado. We currently have one wild and scenic river and as you know the wild and scenic statute carries with it a federal reserved water right. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Managment are jointly working on a master plan in the southwest part of the state and have come up with the identification of 56 stream segments in that area that they want to study for wild and scenic attributes. It certainly has the attention of the water users there. They have such stream segments as the Animas through Silverton, which could similarly qualify. It's almost like some of the mid-level managers are looking for ways to circumvent some things like the agreement that we framed. I felt all along that we could work with the in stream flow laws in Colorado to benefit not only the state, but the federal interests there in preserving those natural resources and I hate to see that go by the wayside and be clouded by this wild and scenic issue that seems to be surfacing. David Tenny: Which national forest are we talking about? Rod Kuharich: It's in Division 4. The San Juan. I don't know if the Rio Grande goes over far enough, but the San Juan for sure and Bureau of Land Management lands that are located in that area also. David Tenny: I think it's safe to say that when you have an agreement like that, not only does it set some policy, but there's a bit of political capital invested in it as well. I think what is being put together is that both sides understood that and so it forms almost a constitution, if you will for how these issues ought to be addressed. My guess is they'll be able to figure it out. At least that's the way it's set up. If that hasn't happened it should. If it has happened and it's not going along as it was hoped, or someone is disappointed in how that is working then I think that's something we ought to know. As far as I've seen, the relationships out there have improved dramatically. Because of that, I'm optimistic that were not going to take any steps out there to offend the underlying principals ofthe language on the face of that MOU. I think if you get the feeling trouble is brewing, then get it out to the right folks quickly and let them talk about it so it doesn't become more of a grievance. Matt McKeown: It's been my experience that when you strike a deal like this you need to be proactive. There's always people that are still interested in fighting even after you've got an agreement so you have to be very diligent about it. 9