Laserfiche WebLink
Information Management Systems to be held in Reno, Nevada on July 24 -26th. Staff also <br />distributed a summary of a meeting last year on water conservation, and a letter urging the <br />appointment of a coordinator for the Bridging the Headgate Partnership, of which the Council is a <br />member. Staff briefly highlighted hydropower - related provisions of national energy policy and <br />proposed legislation. Doug Foss, with Harza Engineering, described a model for pulsing water <br />releases from a hydropower project on the Missouri /Madison River system to meet water <br />temperature needs. Lastly, there was considerable discussion surrounding proposed federal drought <br />policy and planning legislation, which the WGA has developed and for which the WGA is looking <br />for a sponsor. While the WGA hopes to have the bill introduced by August, staff are also <br />considering opportunities to move pieces of it with separate bills. California expects to support the <br />bill, while other states still have questions. Montana previewed its new drought website.10 <br />The highlight of the Legal Committee meeting was a panel on federal water rights claims and <br />uses, which covered issues of decisionmaking and problemsolving within state water laws. With <br />respect to the latter, Bill McDonald, acting - Commissioner for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, stated <br />that personally he believes it all comes down to the question: "Who has control ?" The debate boils <br />down to: Who has ownership of water rights appropriated for Reclamation projects, the water users <br />or the federal government? What is the nature of that ownership? What conditions, if any, may be <br />applied under state law? Paul Brouha, Associate General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, <br />participated via conference call. He emphasized USDA's obligation to obtain favorable <br />instreamflow conditions for federal purposes, including functional stream channels and species <br />viability. He stated that USDA claims in state "McCarran Act" general stream adjudications had led <br />to little success, and reaffirmed USDA's authority to require facilities on Forest Service lands to <br />bypass flows as part of federal permitting requirements -- though USDA has used such discretionary <br />authority with restraint. <br />Council members added their perspectives. Karl Dreher of Idaho emphasized the importance <br />of state and local initiatives, as opposed to federal regulation, using local landowners' efforts along <br />the Limhi River as an example. Mike Turnipseed of Nevada noted that states disagree over the <br />application of the Winter's Doctrine to ground water, and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to address <br />the question. Meg Reeves of Oregon mentioned the Klamath Basin situation," and an Okanogan <br />County lawsuit in Washington's Methow Valley involving USFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife <br />Service. Norm Johnson of Utah noted successful negotiations over National Park Service water <br />needs have avoided litigation. The consensus of the discussion was that federal water right issues <br />need to be focused on problemsolving rather than contending over who controls the situation. Other <br />topics discussed included an upcoming Indian Water Rights Symposium, Congressional activity <br />related to settlement legislation, and the Trout Unlimited v. USDA, Tulare Lake Basin v. U.S. and <br />Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton cases. Work continues slowly toward the possible introduction of <br />an Adjudications Fee Fairness Act. A draft questionnaire on state laws on ground water recharge <br />and water reuse was distributed for comment. <br />'OAvailable at http:/ /nris.state.mt.us /drought. <br />"Western States Water, Issue 41416, July 6, 2001. <br />11 <br />