FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1989] WATER RIGHTS PROTECTION E water supply and conservation plan before the project can be perm ted, or that the water diversion structure would be better located some other place, or that the state should not have awarded the wal right at all because the project applicant might be able to obtain wat from some other source. However, as we explain below, "2 a su water decree names a source of supply and establishes a priority usage for a definite quantity of water to be withdrawn from the natu! stream for a beneficial use, and the award of a water right to a partie lar user represents an expression of the public interest.'43 EP A al the Corps are not permitted under section 10 I (g) to second-guess t state's water allocation determination. Water rights cannot be wish, away by federal decision makers who think the state should have act, differently. '44 It is apparent that EP A staffers have an enlarged view of thl role, which threatens the congressional policy of federalism in matte of state water allocation. A recent Region VIII EP A memorandu boldly stated that EP A commences its water project review with tl proposition that the no-federal-action alternative is. always the be choice. "5 Impact analysis of an application for a 404 permit proceee without EP A considering mitigation measures. The Corps, on tl other hand, starts from the proposition that the project should be al thorized with appropriate mitigation, unless it can be shown that tl project is contrary to the public interest. '46 The latter assumptic more closely comports with the intent of section 10 I (g). If overriding preemptive environmental interests of the Unit. States are involved, EP A may veto a Corps discharge permit unde 142. See infra part UI.A. 143. Moreover, the applicant is not permitted under Colorado law to change his water use if t change will cause injury to other water rights. Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Ric 625 P.2d 977, 979-80 (Colo. 1981); Town of Breckenridge v. City & County of Denver, 620 P.2d 104 1050 (Colo. 1980). 144. Professor Tarlock has suggested that something akin 10 a police power water right may created by federal statutory law, Tarlock, New Commons In Western Water.r, in WATER AND n AMERICAN WEST, supra note 14, at 80-82, Whether or no! such a federal waler right exists, which doubtful, it cannot be recognized unless it is adjudicated for the purpose of establishiug its quantity ar priority. Where the federal government has been joined in a state water rights adjudication,under II McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.c. ~ 666(a) (1982), the determination offederaI water rights must 0 cur in state court. See Colorado River Waler Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.s. 800 (197t United States v. District Court, 401 U.s. 520 (1971); United States v. Bell, 724 P.2d 631 (Colo. 198t 145. Memorandum from Dennis Sohocki, EPA Region VII $taff, to Jim Scherer, EPA Admini trator (Oct. 14, 1988) (regarding "Update on Staff Two Forks 404(b)(l) Compliance Evaluation ar. Related Issues"). See also Memorandum for the Director of Civil Works from Robert W. Page, Assi tant Secretary of the Army (Mar. 15, 1989) (attachment entitled EPA Draft Section 404(b)(1) Guid, line Mitigation Policy).