BOARD01636 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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