FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1989] WATER RIGHTS PROTECfION 3. Accommodating Federal Environmental Law and Sta. Water Law Section 10 I (g) has yet to undergo rigorous interpretation by I courts. Riverside Irrigation District v. Andrews IS' appeared to be 1 definitive case, but none of the three sentences of section 10 I (g) VI actually analyzed or applied there. Rather, the decision turned whether an irrigation district was entitled to utilize a "nation wid permit for its proposed water storage project, IS6 free from most str tures of the 404 permitting program. The government prevailed in argument that a site-specific permit application was necessary in li~ of the alleged potential impact on the endangered whooping cra downstream. The permit application never materialized because Pu lic Service Company of Colorado, which had agreed to fund the da and share the water with the ditch company, dropped the project d to costs and an indefinite delay in the construction of its power pIal Nevertheless, Riverside Irrigation is instructive on a number points. First, it is apparent that, despite the apparent clash of impc tant principles of state water law and federal environmental law, tl courts are rightfully reluctant to intercede in the absence of a factu record and proceeding by which to test the specific extent of the co flict and the manner and means for its resolution. Second, it appea that the Corps' public interest review may be the best available foru for joining issue in the context of a particular controversy. All inte ested persons receive notice and can articulate their viewpoint. clash of views often leads to negotiated permit conditions, which bol accommodates the national interest and allows the construction aT operation of structures necessary for the exercise of water rights. Third, sometimes water users protest too much about alleged il terference with their water rights. Unless the owner of a water right actually deprived of his source of supply, priority, quantity, or bene! cial use of the water right, those reasonable measures that are include as conditions of a permit necessary to protect public health, oth( water rights, and the environment are within the intent of the lay The purpose of section 10 I (g) is to steer federal agencies towards resolution that ameliorates adverse impacts without superseding or at rogating the water right. '" 155. 758 F.2d 508 (10th Cir. 1985). 156. 33 C.F.R. !! 320.0-.4 (1988). 157. United States v. Akers, 785 F,2d 814, 819.20 (9th Cir.), ceTI denied, 479 U.S. 828 (1986), an example of a water user protesting too much. The farmer there really wanted to converl wetlands t ~.... 1__.:1 :_ __..l.< ~_ ,,__.