Senate Bill 212 Transcript: Exhibit A-B

Home Browse Search

is also an ongoing effort to settle the case involving instream flow water rights in wilderness areas. Until the outcome of settlements or court decisions are known, the inclusion of sections 3 and 4 of the original Senate is premature, and I therefore ask for the deletion of these sections of the bill. A similar deletion is made in section 1 by the amendments I offer. These deletions-do not imply that the state refuses to accept the doctrine of federal preemption, where that applies. 'But it is. simply unnecessary to specifically federal preemption in state law. In deciding whether to oppose a United States claim in any given case, whether an appropriative or reserved rights claim, the Water Conservation Board can determine whether federal pre- emption applies. so as to make'a statement of opposition not worthy of being filed. The Board should continue to exercise its dis- cretion in this regard. Conclusion In conclusion, Senate Bill 212 and the amendments I offer reaffirm that, as a matter of state law, only the Water Conser- vation Board is authorized to make instream flow appropriations - between specific points on a stream or for volumes of water or •surface water levels for natural lakes. This authorization is for minimum flow or minimum lake level appropriations for preservation of the natural environment to a reasonable degree.. No other person or entity has been given authorization to make.instream flow appropriations for any-purpose. The Board,'in its dis- cretion, may accept interests in water which have been appropriated for other uses and change the use to an instream flow use. When it does so it can contract with the person or entity providing the water -to enforce the use of that water for an instream flow use. This encourages persons or entities interested in instream flow to work through the Water Conservation Board which has a statewide perspective and specified administrative and judicial procedures by which to proceed. f .•.-V