My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02269
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
14000-14999
>
WSPC02269
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:18:02 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:16:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.750
Description
Colorado River Operations And Accounting - California 4-4 Plan
State
CA
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1998
Author
Unknown
Title
Colorado River Board 4-4 Plan - California Water Update Plan - Bulletin 160-98 - Public Review Draft - Volume II - Part III
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
127
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Bulletin 16().9S Public Review Draft <br /> <br />003JG7 <br /> <br />Appendix 2A. Institutional Framework for Allocating <br />and Managing Water Resources in California <br /> <br />routinely implements the public trust doctrine through regulations and through terms and <br />conditions in water rights permits and licenses. <br />Federal Power Act <br />The Federal Power Act created a federal licensing system administered by the Federal <br />Energy Regulatory Commission and requires that a license be obtained for nonfederal <br />hydroelectric proj ects proposing to use navigable waters or federal lands. The act contains a <br />clause modeled after'a clause in the Reclamation Act of 1902, which disclaims any intent to <br />affect state water rights law. <br />In a number of decisions dating back to the 1940s, the U.S. Supreme Court held that <br />provisions of the Reclamation Act and the Federal Power Act preempted inconsistent provisions <br />of law, Decisions under both acts found that these clauses were merely "saving clauses" which <br />required the United States to follow minimal state procedural laws or to pay just compensation <br />where vested nonfederal water rights are taken, <br />In California v, United States (1978), however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a <br />number of earlier Supreme Court decisions which found that the Reclamation Act substantially <br />preempts state water 'law. It held that the Reclamation Act clause requires the USBR to comply <br />with conditions in state water rights permits unless those conditions conflict with "clear <br />Congressional directives." In California v. FERC (1990), commonly referred to as the Rock <br />Creek Decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California's argument that the Federal Power <br />Act clause required deference to state water law, as the Reclamation Act did. The Supreme Court <br />distinguished between the two acts, finding that the Federal Power Act envisioned a broader and <br />more active oversight role than did the Reclamation law. The Federal District Court case of <br />Sayles Hydro Association v. Maughan (1993), reinforced this view by holding that federal law <br />prevents any state regulation offederally licensed power projects other than determining <br />proprietary water rights. <br />In 1994, the U,S. Supreme Court issued a decision referred to as the Elkhorn decision or <br />Tacoma decision (PUD No, 1 of Jefferson County and City of Tacoma v. Washington <br />Department of Ecology). The court held that a state minimum instream flow requirement is a <br />permissible condition of a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification, in response to a proposal to <br />construct a hydroelectric project on the Dosewallips River. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean <br /> <br />2A-5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.