WSP03270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PART 3 SUMMARY OF STATE VIEWS A copy of the Response Form sent to the fifty states to obtain their views on the listing and discussion of the twenty-five objections to the draft bill identified by the ICWP Task Force is enclosed as Figure 1. A tabulation of state responses is shown in Figure 2. Objections ID, IF, and 2A were revised slightly for clarity and to incorporate review comments received by several states. Due to the necessity of completing this report, no attempt was made to repoll those states which indicated they disagreed with the Task Force on these items to see if these revisions would cause a change in their state's position. Specific Elements Of An Acceptable Bill In response to the question listed on the surmnary response form "What ele- ments would need to be included in a bill on this subject to obtain the support of your state?lI, specific comments were received from 26 states. The remaining states indicated they had no comment at this time or did not respond to the question. It can be assumed, however, that any draft bill prepared by ICWP would be of concern and interest to all states who responded to the initial ICWP draft report as well as states who were unable to provide input at this time. The response from several states specifically questioned the need for any bill at this time and/or the supportability of the federal "reserved right" doctrine. Of the states who did respond by listing specific elements to be considered, the major elements identified were: 1. The bill should specifically provide for state jurisdiction (admin- istrative and judicial) over the quantification and initial adjudication process. 2. The bill should provide for inclusion in the inventory and quantifica- tion process of indian water rights. 3. The bill should not allow "additional" purposes to be declared. 4. The bill should provide for compensation for loss of rights established under state law when that loss is occasioned by the exercising of a federal reserved right. 5. limited The bill should provide that claims of federal to the original purposes of the reservation. reserved rights be 6. The bill should specifically provide for the exclusion of a federal reserved right in riparian states. 7. The bill should specifically exclude groundwater from being subject to any claims under a federal reserved right. (26)