Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0256 CCMMENl'S 0Jt~m& SPECIFIC ROCCM1ENDATIONS OF4l: TASK FOlCE <br /> <br />A. Timetable for Identification and (}uantification of Federal <br />Water Rights <br /> <br />1. The Western States Water Cormcil believes it should be <br />acknadedged that this recClTllTl2frlation is relevant only where a state <br />does not have a pr=edure under which the united States can. be joined <br />under the ~1cCarran Arrerrlment. The pr=edure provided by the ~lcCarran <br />Amen::lment is l:oth an adequate and highly satisfactory lI\2thod for 00- <br />ju:J.ication and quantifying federal \~ater rights. This reccmnen:1ation <br />with respect to the establishnent of consumptive water rights should <br />include SCITle very precise instructions when implemented as to the nature <br />of the claims that should appropriately be alleged by the federal agency. <br />Previous litigation has been significantly hampered by the federal <br />goverrurent citing theoretical and hypothetical needs that were based on <br />full le<Jal extension of all possible rights. For this to continue would <br />be in direct disre<Jard of the President I s rrem::>randurn of July 12, 1978, <br />and ~.Duld significantly delay, canplicate, and increase the cost of the <br />federal water right determination process. <br /> <br />If reasonable starrlards are used to assert the federal reserved <br />right, the five year timetable proposed by this recc:mrendation is <br />reasonable to at least identify clai.r.ed federal water rights in priority <br />areas. <br /> <br />The ten year period for t~e identification of non-consumptive <br />uses as propcsed, is too long and is not reasonable. Stilte . <br />courts are not going to be wi I I ing to give federal agencies this <br />period of time to quantify their non-consumptive uses. <br />The Western States Water Counci I sees no reason for the federal <br /> <br />goverrurent to delay their quantification of reasonably foreseeable uses <br />(if such rights do exist) beyond the five year period proposed by the <br />Task Force for a:mslllllf>tive uses. On page 39 of the explanation for the <br />recanrrendation, it is stated that, "It is essential, hoIvever, that all <br />these uses be quantified by the Federal Government. " It JlUJSt be <br />recognized that, pursuant to the t.lcCarran Arrendment, as litigation is <br />pursued in state courts quantification will be accanplished by the state <br />court pr=ess. Tnerefore, it is not essential that quantification be <br />cori!ucted initially in all cases by the federal goverrurent. <br /> <br />The acknOldedgemont that there should be sane exceptions for <br />agencies that are involved with plannirx:l cycles, is appropriate, as long <br />as it is recognized that the federal agency has no option if, under the <br />McCarran procedures, the state brin:Js the agency into a state determination <br />and therefore could rot be granted the 15 year exeq>tion proposed. <br /> <br />-5- <br /> <br />...__..~.. ......--..-.---. '--"-~--~-' ".. ..-..- <br />