PUB00146 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Western States Water Council Legal Committee Seattle, Washington July 14, 2005 . Adding to the complexity of adjudicating federal claims is the fact that the Pueblos claim immemorial water rights. Quantifying them is a real challenge. Nevertheless, we believe that they can be quantified, and once quantified, should be and will be administered by the state. As in other states, there are issues associated with competing jurisdictions. It is important that these issues be resolved, so that continuity and fairness can be achieved. There was created an Office of the Ombudsman at theUtton Center at the University of New Mexico, with the objective of providing a resource available for the public and water rights owners. DL described the state's desire to nurture trust in the administrative process. That process is focusing on "hot spots." Most of our resources are going to places in the state where we have compact issues, where tribal claims are involved, and where we have shortages. It is the state's intention to work things out in those areas. In meeting these challenges, we hope that senior water rights in particular will see the benefits and will provide assistance in expediting this process, so that they are assured of a dependable supply. DL described a recent development in that the water court system has adopted new adjudication rules. The state is concerned that this will foster new litigation, but believes it is important to assure due process. He referred members to the web site of the State Engineer's Office for reference to the regulations he described in Albuquerque. While these regulations were very controversial initially. people are now generally supportive of the process. While he wished he could be so bold as to predict completion in ten years, he felt more comfortable in predicting that in six years significant progress will have been made. Last on the panel was Karl Dreher, Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR). He described the Snake River Basin Adjudication. The adjudication commenced with most claims filed . in 1987. A special district court was established to preside. The Idaho Department of Water Resources initially was a formal party. But by 1994, the state had spent about $40M and had not adjudicated a single water right. The state legislature was very unhappy. At that time, Karl's predecessor in the position, decided to retire, and Karl indicated he accepted the job primarily to see if he could be successful with the adjudication. In 1994, the Department was removed as a.formal party and made the court's technical advisor. IDWR files recommendations with the court, and any claimant can file an objection to those recommendations. To the extent possible, objections are resolved through 'negotiation, but can be the subject of a hearing and that outcome may be appealed. Once the process for an individual claim is complete, similar to Montana, Idaho issues a partial decree for that water right. Idaho uses the term because the decree has not been consolidated into one final decree, but it is enforceable. Initially, over 160,000 claims were filed, which included various claims by tribes in the state. 10,000 federal claims were filed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. In the case of the Forest Service, Idaho spent a great deal of money to investigate these claims and in the end, the great majority were withdrawn. At this point in the adjudication, 120,000 claims have been partially decreed, 10,000 claims are ready for partial decrees, so that 20,000 of the 160,000 remain. Recommendations for those remaining claims will be completed by the end of this calender year. While noting that lessons learned in Idaho may not necessarily be transferrable, he discussed four central elements of Idaho's strategy that he thought had led to success. First, he said that communication and relationships are key. He spent a great deal of time establishing a relationship with the presiding judge . in this regard. He was able to do this as the technical advisor to the court, rather than a formal party. This 6