FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ - ---o:;:r-- - ~ - ~ ~- - --- ----------0 eterminations different from those of the appropriate state fo- For example, federal agencies cannot determine that the state have allocated the available water in the stream to white-water g instead of municipal water supply, or to fish and wildlife prop- 1 instead of crop production, or that the state should have estab- a different priority among water uses, such as preferring a ipal use over a mining use, or an instream use over an agricul- Ise. Uses. their priority, the amount of water decreed for each ,d the source of water supply assigned by the state to the water .re matters left by federal law to state determination. Dday, most water projects in the West are being sponsored by lpal and quasi-municipal entities. The basic function of local ment is to provide essential services to citizens such as water , roads, and police and fire protection. Of these, a firm and ade- water supply is among the most basic. Federal statutes should interpreted in a manner inconsistent with significant state inter- I the absence of a "clear statement" of congressional intent. 106 ally where a congressional statement of policy to the contrary such as section IOI(g), the courts must reject a federal agency's ln of jurisdiction over matters traditionally subject to state .ion. 107 ccordingly, it is the duty of EP A and the Corps, under section to reinforce the objective of federalism to preserve the ability of ate to allocate water from the natural streams within its bound- This concept was not new to the 1977 Clean Water Act. In he United States Supreme Court stated that, as to the states, ress recognized and assented to the appropriation of water in lention of the common law rule of continuous flow."IOB When 72 FWPCA Amendments were adopted, Congress reaffirmed existing law that had established state primacy in water alloca- atters. The opening provision of the Clean Water Act states )licy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the pri- esponsibilities and rights of the States . . . to plan the develop- 33 V.S.C. ! 1251(.) (1982). L. TRIBE., AMERICAN CON~ITUTIONAL LAW, S 5-8, at 243 (1978). See Andrus v. Charles- Products Co., 436 U.S. 604, 615 (1978) (excluding water as a locatable mineral under federal See Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 324 U.S. 515, 53()..32 (1945). United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.s. 690, 706 (1899).