<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 />
|