Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0028.?~ <br />..J <br /> <br />') <br /> <br />and must recognize water rights held by others, "the <br />United States typically argues that McCarran is not <br />applicable because the United States is not claiming a <br />'water right.' If the Supreme Court was unwilling to allow <br />the United States to 'enervate' McCarran by excluding <br />'ubiquitous' Indian water right claims that are asserted in <br />fulfillment of the trust responsibility of the United States, <br />then the federal agencies cannot be allowed to <br />eviscerate McCarran by the simplistic device of <br />redefining federal uses of water for ESA purposes as <br />something other than a water right in order to obtain <br />water for the even more common claims to the use of <br />water for the protection of endangered species." <br /> <br />Other witnesses included agriculture, water <br />conservancy district, and environmental representatives. <br />Cathy Carlson, representing the National Wildlife <br />Federation, highlighted successes of the ESA, including <br />recovery of the bald eagle and the gray wolf. She <br />concluded that the "real challenge under the <br />Endangered Species Act. going forwards in time, is the <br />need for more funding for threatened and endangered <br />species programs. Once a species is identified as <br />threatened or in danger of extinction, funds are needed <br />to develop and implement effective management <br />strategies forthe recovery, and ultimately, the de-listing <br />of the species. Instead, in recent years Congress <br />appears more inclined to block needed funds for species <br />recovery efforts, placing the burden on the states, and <br />ultimately on landowners to develop strategies which are <br />poorly funded and poorly executed due to lack of <br />resources." <br /> <br />In a subsequent interview, Congressman Bob <br />Schaffer (R-CO), who took an active role in the field <br />hearing, made clear that no legislation to reform the ESA <br />is anticipated in this Congress. He said, "I think the <br />House of Representatives is doing the right thing by <br />holding field hearings and making common sense <br />proposals. The Senate has also proposed sweeping <br />reform, and we are using this period to refine our <br />legislation to hold up to the scrutinizing of opposition and <br />criticism. So that come 2001, ...lhe Congress will be <br />ready to go with a solid, broad, ambitious piece of <br />legislation designed to restore credibility to the <br />Endangered Species Act. honor the rights of property <br />owners, and actually assist the recovery of endangered <br />species," <br /> <br />Regulatory Retonn <br /> <br />This past week the Senate Govemment Affairs <br />Committee approved a bill, S. 1214, to prevent the <br /> <br />-'j <br /> <br />federal government from preempting state and local <br />government authority. While proponents argue that the <br />bill protects states' rights, opponents claim the bill wouic <br />interfere with the federal government's ability to protect <br />the public health and the environment. The bill would <br />require Congress and the executive branch to <br />deliberately identify any sections of a bill or rules where <br />they would be preempting state and local authority and <br />provide the reasons for doing so. Also, a statute or rule <br />would have to expressly state that preemption is not <br />allowed, or else any ambiguity would be construed in <br />favor of preserving the authority of state and local <br />governments. Opponents, including the Clinton <br />Administration, argue that the requirements of the bill are <br />too burdensome, call for excessive consultation with <br />state and local governments, would spur lawsuits, and <br />most importantly, undermine national publiC health, <br />safety and environmental standards. A companion bill, <br />H.R. 2245, was recently approved by the House <br />Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory <br />Affairs. <br /> <br />MEETINGS <br /> <br />The Native American Rights Fund and Western <br />States Water Council are holding another symposium on <br />Indian water rights settlements to be held September 8- <br />10 in Missoula, Montana. A registration form has beer <br />distributed to previous attendees. The advance <br />registration deadline was August 13, but registrations <br />may still be accepted, although at an increased fee. <br /> <br />The meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn <br />Missoula Parkside. Their number is (406) 721-8550. <br />Governor Marc Racicot will be speaking to open the <br />symposium. David Hayes, Acting Deputy Secretary of <br />Interior, supervising the negotiated settlement program, <br />has confirmed his attendance. Several other federal, <br />tribal, state, and local, governrnent representatives who <br />have been involved in the negotiation process will be <br />featured speakers. In addition, the Confederated Salish <br />& Kootenai Tribes have graciously offered to provide a <br />social/cultural activity for attendees on Thursday, <br />September 9th. Altogether, we expect another fine <br />symposium and an excellent opportunity to share <br />perspectives with key individuals within the <br />Administration and the Congress. <br /> <br />Continuing legal education credit (CLE), will be <br />available. If you have any questions regarding the <br />symposium, please feel free to call the Council, or the <br />Native American Rights Fund at (303) 447-8760. <br /> <br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors <br />of member states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, <br />Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming - and associate member state Alaska. <br />