Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />WITWER & FREEMAN <br /> <br />FAX NO, 3038324465 <br /> <br />P. 09 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />McCarran Amendment to integraieJederal water use into unitary state systems.'" <br />Likewise, the Nevada State Engineer stated that "[t]he U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. <br />Justice Depanmenltend 10 want to, ignore the McCarran Amendment when it comes to <br />State adjudications ofwaler rights IUld also tend 10 assert claims for Livestock walering <br />on Forest Service lands. '" Similar concerns were expressed by Karl Dreher, Director, <br />Idaho Department of Water Resollrces, in oral testimony to the Task Force on August 4, <br />1997. In addition, the threat oftllClassertion of bypass flows has stalled what miglll <br />otherwise be successful negotiilted'settlements offederal reserved wilter rights litigation in <br />Colorado.' See Pan V. <br /> <br />. In Arizona, the Regional Forester 4enumded that water rightS owned by grazing <br />permittees be transferred to the Forest Service.' The water rights ilt issue were established <br />under state law for livestock purposes. Arizona lilW, however, requires that the water <br />right be held by the person making' the beneficial use ofwilter, and the United Stales does <br />not own or run livestock on these j!razing allotments, and thus cannot make a beneficial <br />use of the water. The Nevada State Engineer also raised this issue. See Pan IV. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />· Anome)' Glmeral Norton 1_ roT..k For",!, Augustl. 1997 <br /> <br />1 R. Michael Turnipseed letlc:r1O Task For~, ~anuary 7, 1997. <br /> <br />· S.. Holme/!..eonhllfdt lelIor to T..k Force. J~ly 28, 1997. <br /> <br />· Rita P. Pelll'son lenor ro Chllfles W. Canwrright,lr" Regional forest<r, Region lII, MllI'cllll, 1996. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1-2 <br />