WSP03082 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

too' j' ~ ' '. 19 O~3S -. Paragraph 6 provides that if the State is not itself authorized to transfer at least 50,000 acre-feet of water annually, the Tribes may market water subject to any volume limitations provided by federal law, or if there are no federal limitations, subject to any volume limitations imposed by state law on holders of state water rights. In no event shall the quantity limitation on the Tribes be less than 50,000 acre-feet per year. So if the State in the future absolutely prohibited water marketing by itself and any of its water users, the Tribes could market subject to any limitations on tribal water marketing imposed by federal law. But in no event would the Tribes be allowed to market less than 50,000 acre-feet per year. I Third, Section D of Article III provides that outside the Reservation, the Tribes can market water for any purpose that is ben~ficial as that term "is d~fined by valid state law" on the date the Tribes propose to market the water. Although the State cannot generally regulate tribal water mark~ting, it could under this provision ban a particular use of water proposed to be marketed by the Tribes outside the Reservation if the use proposed was nonbeneficial under state law. For example, state law has excluded coal slurry pipelines as a beneficial use. However, the State would have to ban similar uses by all its citizens as well as ~~ the Tribes. It could not discriminate against the Tribes. Fourth, Section E provides that the Tribes or any diverter or user of water marketed by the Tribes shall comply with valid state laws regulating the siting, construction, operation or uses of any industrial facility, pipeline or the like which transports or uses the water outside the Reservation. This Section is intended to apply statutes such as the State's Major Facilities Siting Act to industries using or trans~ort~~g water marketed by the Tribes outside the Reservatlon. (Footnote Continued) February 28, 1985 Helena meeting (Tr. Feb. 28, 1985, pp. 24-34). 30Also, the State could not ban a proposed tribal use by making its definition of what constitutes a beneficial use more restrictive after the Tribes give notice of a proposed transfer. 3lThe Section provides that the user must apply for and obtain any authorization required by state law prior to making (Footnote Continued)