My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
23G
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
23G
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2010 1:32:36 PM
Creation date
6/28/2010 1:29:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
4/30/2004
Description
23G
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Executive Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
federal lands and replaced them with a single grant of authority to the Secretaries of Agriculture <br />and the Interior to "grant, issue, or renew rights -of -way over, upon, under, or through" public and <br />National Forest Lands. 43 U.S.C. § 1761(a). Congress' grant of authority included the <br />obligation to include terms and conditions in each right -of -way which will, inter alia, "minimize <br />damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the <br />environment." 43 U.S.C. § 1765(a). The Forest Service's exercise of its regulatory authority to <br />impose bypass flows as a condition on the use of National Forest land does not constitute the <br />assertion of a water right. <br />The argument that imposition of bypass flows implicates or conflicts with state water <br />rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court in PUD No 1 v. Washing Dept. of Ecology, 511 <br />U.S. 700 (1994). In that case, PUD No. 1 argued that a minimum instream flow requirement <br />imposed pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act ran afoul of disclaimers provided in that act <br />which preserved the state's authority to allocate water rights.' Id. at 720. The Court rejected that <br />• <br />argument, holding that the disclaimers "preserve the authority of each State to allocate water <br />quantity as between users," but did not limit the scope of federal regulation (in that case pollution <br />controls) that may be imposed on users with water rights obtained under state law. In doing so, <br />the Court recognized that the regulatory action under federal law (minimum stream flow <br />requirements) did not interfere with the state allocation because it neither "reflected nor <br />5 The disclaimers in the CWA are similar to the savings clauses in § 701(g) of FLPMA. Section <br />101(g) of the CWA provides: "the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its <br />jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this chapter." 33 U.S.C. § <br />1251(g) Similarly, § 510(2) provides that nothing in the CWA shall "be construed as impairing or in any <br />manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters ... of such States." 33 <br />U.S.C. § 1370. <br />-20- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.