WSP00588 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

()264 . . As an alternative to the rrajority reccmrer:dation, the Deparbrent of Justice reccmnetlds that the united States only participate in ju:l.icial proceedings rreeting the requiranents of the HcCarran Arrerrlment. We take issue with the Justice Department's alternative on page 56, by which it would require establishment of federal starrlards to ".. .govern the participation of the United States in any ard all state proceedings regardmg water. . . . " The McCarran Arrerrl1rent speaks for itself in setting out the parameters for fe:leral participation in state water pro- ceedings. Furtherrrore, the prCIl1UlgatiOll of additional criteria or standards urrler which the sufficiency of stateprocee:lings is to be scrutinized is solely within the province of the courts and should not be interfered with by any agency of the executive branch of the fe:leral governrrent. 10. The McCarran ArneruJment is unfortunately ambiguous on the question of whether or not state.administrative proceedings meet the requirements of the amendment so as to provide states with jurisdiction to adjudicate federal reserved rights within their state administrative systans. The legislative history of the act, however, indicates an intent to allow all the western states to adjudicate federal water . rights within the several state water resources management sys1:ans. Furthennore, the Western states Water Council cannot understand the basis for recOl1lllending federal participation in state jlrlicial proceed- ings an:1 against participation in administrative proceedings which,. of necessity, are reviewable before both state an:1 federal judicial machinery. The Justice Department's position does nothing to further Presidient Carter's goals of allowing states to continue their primary role in water resource managarent. I The rocornmendati.o.n 'th.oi.+ +he 'l!n'itod'S.t",t"s o.ilrticipCJte in administrative proceedings is 3 much more reasonable and worth",h; Ie position. ';,'" The position of the Justice nepartment, and to a lessp.r .~ x ten t, t hat 0 f the T a s i< For c e its Q if, fa i 1st 0 r e cOG n i z e t hat the interrelationship between federal and non-federal water rights on 2ny given stream systen as wel I as related c?~sirlerations of due process ""5 tho impetus for providing consent to join tho United S.cates. in unified proceedings to adjudici3te rights to tilO U.3.,) of vlater. 11. The western states agree with the Task Force in its finding that the fEDeral government atterrpt to determine a legal basi.s for the payment of reasonable, non-discrirninatory state filh,g anct other fees relating to applications for water rights. In our view, ./hen the federal governrrent, acting in either its proprietary or fiduciary capacity, seeks to acquire the right to use water within state boundaries, i.t should be required to pay the sam: scheduled fees as anyone else. , , I I I I , i \ I \ -12- I \ \ \