Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />... . . <br /> <br />rlR15e the problEmS cre~ed by the previous practice of establishing <br />o 4::l!served water rights. The Secretary of Interior has, at this time, <br />offered his support and c=peration to western states in urging Congress <br />to enact refonns which the states feel are necessary with respect to <br />issues created by the water policy refonn effort armounced by the <br />President. It may well be that the states and the Administration should <br />seriously consider legislation which could be supported by both parties <br />and would significantly limit the way resenred water rights are to be <br />created in the future. <br /> <br />The Western States Water Council also believes that it would be <br />appropriate for the Administration to consider the option that ,."ater <br />rights in the future are to be created only through the established <br />state systans and not by the dual, cumbersone, confusing, and ineffective <br />process that has resulted fran the exercise of the reservation doctrine <br />in the past. <br /> <br />The Western States Water Council agrees with the Task Force in that <br />all new water rights must respect existing rights with priorities that <br />are subsequent am sul:Drdinate to the existing rights. This must be <br />explicit in any creation of ne.." federal rights and can ITOst effectively <br />be accomplished within the established state water right syst~~. <br /> <br />As a minimum, the Western States \~ater Council con=s with tlJe <br />Task Force recanmendation that when specific quantities of water are not <br />identified in the future, a reserve of water shall be deerned not to have <br />been made. The Council urges that at least this portion of the Task <br />Force recommendation be enacted by legislation. <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />Finally, the \\'estern States Water Council in its rejection of the <br />Solicitor's opinion with regard to the existence of non-reserved water <br />rights across the I'lest, feels that the Task Force position under Item 9 <br />is correct ard is effective in rebuttin; the Solicitor I s opinion that <br />there are fran coast to coast, in every state, non-reserved water <br />rights. The Western States I~ater Council believes that as legislation is <br />contanplated to identify the way in ~lhich reserved water rights may be <br />created in the future, that the legislation should include a declaration <br /> <br />by Congress that there are no non-reserved water rights which can be <br /> <br />exercised absent canpliance with state substantive, as well as procedural, <br /> <br />water law. . / <br />/ <br /> <br />E. Procedures for l\djuHcating Fa::1eral Reserved Rights <br /> <br />9. The Task Force report provides for greater participation <br />by the federal government within state water :-ight ~~udication systems, <br />. ard the Task Force should be ccmrerrled for this pos~ tlOn. .. Unfortunately, <br />the reccmrendation -,-,-u-ggests. the federal governrrent --Ill t gh_:t._cha II-eilge state <br />jurisdiction where "manifest unfairness to federal interests would <br />result. " <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />-11- <br />