WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rights), or be subject to varied and contradictory constructions depending on the forum in which litigation was brought in cases between private parties. Federal supersession of primary state jurisdiction over water rights is not only undesirable but unnecessary. Adequate safeguards for the federal interest could be provided by federal court review of state actions with respect to reserved rights. Thus, there is no justification from the states' point of view for the bill's attempt to duplicate state administrative and judicial ex- pertise at the federal level. E. The proposed legislation has the effect of placing the burden on the non- federal party to refute the federal claim. The proposed legislation does not address the question of which party must prove the validity or lack of validity of the federal claim. As a practical matter, this silence serves to re-enforce the tactical advantage of the federal government over the non-federal party. In the first place, the federal agencies need not rely on any particular supporting evidence to establish the legal basis for the initial agency claims, [Section 3 (a) (8) is not mandatory: " (D) ocurnentary evidence may include . . ."), nor is there required a hearing before the agency or any record of the agency proceedings. It would be manifestly unfair for such potentially unsupported claims to attain the status of a legal right unless challenged. Nevertheless, this could be the result under the proposed bill. Moreover, even if challenged, the bill's silence as to the burden of proof may mean that the non-federal party would be forcec to refute what may well be legally unsubstantiated claims of the federal government. Having tne burden of proof would be especially onerous with respect to claims of future need, of unquantified federal claims, and of federal estimates of quantities needed for certain purposes, for the state or private party would be put in the unenviable situation of disproving the legality and accuracy of these federal claims that are necessarily tentative and uncertain at the outset. Thus, not only would the non-federal party have to institute the suit and do it within three years, he might also have to disprove ultimately unprovable claims, or lose valuable rights based on state law. Finally, it should again be noted, as previously discussed, that the matter of disproving claimed quantities could require a large amount of investigatory work and expense which would be out of the reach of all but the most prosperous water users. This expense coupled with the uncertainty of future federal use of its claimed portion could cause, in a significant number of cases, forfeiture of valuable private rights to the government by default, rather than in return for just compensation. F. The Justice Department proposal is unclear as to what standard of judicial review is applicable and how the inventory-adjudication process would operate under the Administrative Procedures Act. A few guidelines and assurances are placed in the draft bill purportedly to guarantee an accurate and uninflated inventory of water rights, but the fact (18)