WSP03082 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

24 0643 i \ restrictions in paragraph JIl) de~Iribed above, but not to broader ones sought by the State, because the tribal negotiating team concluded that the above requirements could be easily satisfied for diversions out of the mainstem of the Missouri River in Fort Peck Reservoir or downstream. For example, it is extremely unlikely -- given the amount of water in the mainstem -- that a diversion could adversely affect existing users at the time it is made, impair Missouri River water quality, create saline seep, or the like. It was important to the State that criteria similar to those in state statutes appear to be mirrored in the Compact, and so long as these criteria could be easily satisfied by mainstem Missouri River diversions, the tribal negotiating team acceded to them. i I -1 Paragraph 2 of Section J authorizes legal challenge to a proposed diversion only within 30 da~~ after expiration of the notice given the St~3e by the Tribes, in a court of competent jurisdiction, and by the State or a person whose rights are adversely affected by the diversion or use proposed. If a court case is brought, the Tribes agree under the Compact to assume the burden of going forward and of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the notice was sufficient to show the above five items. The tribal negotiating team believes this is a satiSfactory burden to meet, since the planning phase of any marketing opportunity should consider these factors and the Tribes must show compliance with them 41For example, the tribal negotiating team successfully resisted proposals by the State that diversions not interfere with "projected" demands on the state water supply, that a diversion should be "reasonable" or produce "benefits for the State." ) j J ] 42This notice must be given at least 180 days prior to the diversion. Thus, if notice is given more than 210 days prior to the diversion, which should be done if the marketing is carefully planned, litigation must be brought in advance of the diversion. If possible, notice should b~ given as soon as practicable so that any litigation can be finished or well on the way to decision before a proposed diversion is scheduled to commence. J 43This term is defined as a state or federal district court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, or a tribal court having such jurisdiction if all parties consent. Article II (6). The tribal negotiating team did not concede that state courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter, where Indian reserved water rights are involved.