Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Legal Committee <br /> <br />Sioux Falls, South Dakota <br />May 3, 2007 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />at the lack of integration between state and water allocation on one end and local growth decisions on the <br />other, this is one tool that could be used to bridge that. Some states have moved in that direction while others <br />have not. There are options that states may want to consider. Importantly, while public interest review <br />requirements apply to new applications to water, they often do not apply to transfers and that's where a lot <br />of the activities relative to growth are taking place. In other words, this is where the public interest could <br />perhaps play an important role. <br /> <br />John Utton: Transfers rather than appropriations is where the action is, but how do you determine <br />the public interest where there could be competing water demands for water imports and water exports. <br /> <br />Roland Westergard: These documents are very well done. Is the Council going to take action on <br />those as they come up? <br /> <br />Craig Bell stated the Council would need to take action as a group if these reports are approved by <br />the Council and/or forwarded to the WGA. <br /> <br />Chairman Staudenmaier suggested members pay particular attention to the information about their <br />own state in these reports, particularly if there are any inaccuracies. <br /> <br />The question was raised as to whether these two documents would be separate chapters, or how <br />would they be integrated, or presented? There's a separate recommendation in the Governors' report that <br />requires us to look at the various obstacles to various technologies that could augment water supply, . <br />including legal and institutional. These documents could be incorporated or combined with this, or other <br />reports. <br /> <br />Rod Kuharich expressed some concerns as he read this. Rod stated that Colorado has had some <br />problems with the public interest and decided not to go there. He gave a few descriptions. He doesn't want <br />to confuse it with the Public Trust Doctrine. There is significantly more work that needs to be done in terms <br />of how Colorado is perceived in terms ofthe public interest. <br /> <br />Dennis Strong asked, "Who wants to move into an arena where you're the one responsible for <br />limiting growth?" That's not been Utah's traditional role. The governor of the State of Utah is interested <br />in how we can deal with future growth and when we would run out of water. But as far as getting us in the <br />situation of where you are actually putting water restrictions in place by virtue of the public interest, it's a <br />pretty scary place to be. <br /> <br />Jim Davenport: We cannot be myopic in looking at the public interest. This is not the central <br />question. We are basically at the point where we were with separate torts and separate contracts law. We <br />cannot jam growth management into the public interest. We need to look more broadly at the conceptual <br />aspects in these areas and be careful with how we use this information. <br /> <br />Craig Bell commented that this memo was never intended to be prescriptive for any state. It is <br />designed to layout some options. <br /> <br />Bill Staudenmaier described Arizona's approach in active management areas (AMA), which <br />currently is a hot topic. Arizona's Legislature is considering a bill that will give local planning authorities . <br /> <br />4 <br />