Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 <br /> <br />1414. Senator Owen's proposed bill might also include three other well management tools that <br />will allow the State Engineer and Division Engineer to prevent well depletions from causing <br />injury to senior water rights. These three tools are: (i) authority to approve temporary changes; <br />(ii) authority to allow use of rights for augmentation purposes that are not decreed for that use; <br />and (iii) authority to allow wells to pump directly into a ditch or steam for replacement purposes. <br />Giv'en the number of Rules protesters, the proposed legislation will likely be extremely <br />controversial. <br /> <br />11. Okanogan County - amicus brief. <br /> <br />We filed an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that raises the s!!ffie <br />issues as our Trout Unlimited v. US Forest Service case. The District Court for the Eastern <br />District of Washington held in County o(Okanof(aliv. National Marine Fisheries Service that <br />the Forest Service does have the authority to require facilities renewing special use permits to <br />give up part of their water supply. Our amicus brief argues to the contrary. <br /> <br />12. Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 126, Original. <br />[NEW - or at least "renewed"l <br /> <br />The negotiating teams for the various states have reached agreement on terms that they can <br />recommend to their respective governors and attorrieys general for signature prior to the Special <br />Master's deadline of December 15, 2002. Because these negotiations are still subject to a strict <br />confidentiality order, if the Board wants a report i!n the details of the proposed agreement the <br />Board's counsel can brief the Board in executive session. <br /> <br />13. Oregon v. Klamath Indian Tribes - amicus brief. [NEW] <br /> <br />We joined in an amicus brief prepared by Idaho to support the State of Oregon in the 9th <br />Circuit Court of Appeals. In this appeal oregon and the state amici are arguing that it is <br />improper for a federal court to reSume its exercise of "continuing jurisdiction" over a federal <br />water rights matter when there is an ongoing state 90urt general adjudication in which the federal <br />parties are participating under the McCarran Amendment and where federal law questions can <br />properly be considered and decided. Colorado supports the position that when a federal district <br />court has decided the legal issues in a reserved rights case and turned the case over to the state <br />for adjudication, it shouldn't attempt to exercise continuing jurisdiction fifteen years later without <br />a determination that the state court proceedings are inadequate to address federal questions. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />e <br />