Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002884 <br /> <br />U.S. Supreme Court turned that around. It said "no." The mining <br />laws did not extend that far. As a matter of fact if water was <br />needed, it would have to be appropriated under the state appropria- <br />tions procedures. <br /> <br />Many of you, and more particularly the Corps people and the people <br />from California, art! aW9.re of the New Melones dam decision down in <br />California in which the Supreme Court held that the federal agencies <br />do have to comply with pennit conditions imposed by the State pro- <br />vided they are not inconsistent with the Congressional authorization. <br /> <br />And then there was a case down in New Mexico which involved the <br />Mimbres River. I think the result of that case was that the Supreme <br />Court very severely" limited the application of the reserve rights <br />doctrine and pretty much said that the only water reserved on the <br />forest reserve was thatneoessary to support the foliage and to pro- <br />teot the watershed. As I reoall that was about the thrust of it. <br />But it threw out things like stook watering and minimum stream flows <br />and some of the recreational aspects. The reason I mention this is <br />because I think that these findings of the Supreme Court are not <br />inoonsistent with proper water administration and management, and I <br />do think that these things ought to be built into the National Water <br />Policy Il.I1d I don't think we ought to be making statements like I just <br />read to you from Mr. Rosenfelt. <br /> <br />I guess one of our oonoerns is that shortly" after that New Melones dam <br />decision oame out, we were told by some of the people in the State of <br />California that there was some effort on behalf of some of the federal <br />agencies involved to try to oiroumvent that New Melones decision. In <br />what form I do not know, and ma;ybe this was just kind of a panioky <br />situation when the State thought they finally got a viotory and were <br />conoerned that it was going to be turned around. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />I do know that we have reason to be concerned, and I sa;y this with all <br />due respect to the representatives of the Forest Servioe and BLM who <br />ma;y be here. We had a oouple of meetings with both of those agencies <br />recently. The attitude of the Forest Service, and again they were <br />direoted to do this I am sure, was that if they can't get a water <br />right under a State adjudioation, if they oan't get a water pennit <br />through State law, and if they can't get a water right through a <br />federal adjudication beoause of the limits that were imposed in the <br />Mimbres deoision, they've got another solution. This is just simply" <br />not to issue any entry pennits on the forest reserve. I really don't <br />think this is the wa;y to handle things. I don't think that you should <br />penalize somebody who can use the public resources. I do think there <br />ought to be a way for federal Forest Service people to get together <br />with the State Administr9.tor and sa;y, o. k., we will issue you a penni t <br />and ma;ybe we will have to put oertain conditions on it. Another kind <br />of startling recommendation we had had, and this dido' t oome from the <br /> <br />C-23 <br /> <br />