Laserfiche WebLink
Responses to Questions from Senator Salazar <br /> Question 1: If the modified North Platte Decree and Wyoming State law, as interpreted b <br /> Q Y g � IP by the <br /> State Engineer and the Attorney General, prohibit Reclamation from placing a call on upstream <br /> water users during the irrigation season, why is an amendment needed? <br /> Response: <br /> 1. Neither Formal Opinion No. 2004 -001 nor previous Wyoming State Engineer opinions <br /> prohibit the Bureau of Reclamation from placing a call on upstream water users during <br /> the irrigation season. Rather, they opine that the State Engineer probably would not <br /> honor such a call, and that refusing to honor a pos -May 1 call would be the proper course. <br /> The 2005 letter from the Wyoming State Engineer that we sent with our earlier materials <br /> states: "[I]n my opinion, a Wyoming State Engineer cannot say he will never honor a call <br /> for regulation for Pathfinder Reservoir from May 1 to September 30 in each year." See <br /> September 30, 2005 letter by Patrick T. Tyrrell, p. 4. Although Mr. Tyrrell also stated <br /> that it would be difficult to conceive of circumstances leading to his office honoring such <br /> a call, there are no guarantees, absent the legislation we have proposed, that such a post - <br /> May 1 call would not be made and honored. <br /> 2. There is no guarantee that the Wyoming Supreme Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court, will <br /> agree with the conclusions made in Formal Opinion No. 2004 -001. Even if the State <br /> Engineer were to follow the Opinion and refuse to honor a post -May 1 call for regulation, <br /> he may be forced to do so if a judicial challenge is made to that decision. <br /> • <br /> 3. Mr. Tyrrell serves at the pleasure of the Wyoming Governor. Given Governor <br /> Freudenthal's recent withdrawal of his previous support for legislation limiting the <br /> Bureau of Reclamation's ability to place a post -May 1 call, there are no guarantees that <br /> the current Engineer or his successor will not similarly change position concerning <br /> whether to honor a post -May 1 call. <br /> 4. Throughout the entire Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS ") for the Platte <br /> River Recovery Implementation Program ( "PRRIP ") there is no clear indication of where <br /> the water for the PRRIP would come from. This left some uncertainty about which water <br /> rights will be limited as a result of the PRRIP. Following the Governor's dramatic <br /> reversal, it is now crystal clear that Wyoming's contribution will be borne by irrigators <br /> above Pathfinder Reservoir. Indeed, despite the many assurances we have had to the <br /> contrary, we note that the Modified North Platte Decree contemplates calculating an <br /> allocation year by including months all the way into July. Modified Decree, App. E. <br /> Accordingly, despite all the promises, a post -May 1 call has been contemplated, and only <br /> by way of the amendment we seek will protection be provided <br /> 5. The amendment we have endorsed will leave room for compromise regarding future <br /> implementation of the PRRIP, and can only hasten implementation of the program. <br /> Without the amendment, the possibilities for compromise diminish significantly. We will <br /> be forced to challenge the PMP and PRRIP by all legal means. <br /> • <br /> 15308 <br />