WSP03365 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . o ~~ p:>licy. This is 'POliCY DON in effect where the federal goverrment has participated in state adjudications and has waived the right to assert any additional or ne.-l reserved rights. The difficulty with this p:>licy as to the effect on a subsequent administration as p:>inted out in the rep:>rt, should be etlphasized. Indeed, the present administration will not be in office when the p:>licy would first be effectuated. A concern raised by the Depart::Irent of Justice as to \vhether a President can relinquish property rights of the United States, is also worth of careful evaluation. An argurent might reasonably prevail to the effect I that if the right is not identified under the quantification of use I process by the goverranent, there is then, in fact, no further right to I abandon or fail to assert. \ I Further, the western states believe that national p:>licy should be \ that the federal Executive should not assert any reserved rights to satisfy future needs, even for a reasonably "forseeable" pericrl, based on any presently existing reserved rights. The Western States Ivater Council also believes there is a good legal argument that a reserved right is not an openen:led right. D. Creation of Reserved Rights in Ne.-l Reservations .,.. 8. New fex1eral water rights should, whenever p:>ssible, be established under state la\"~ The Task Force has identified that serious problens are created by the rrode in which federal reserved water rights have been created in the past. The I'lestern States Water Council con=s with this conclusion. Therefore, it is very appropriate that a ccrnprehensive look now be given to the way in which reserved water rights can be created in the future. As is p:>inted out by the Task Force, this Administration CaIU10t, even by formally instituted policy, such as an executive order, bind another administration. It would, however 1 be a step in the right direction for the Executive to issue an order whereby no future reserved water rights are to be established by the Executive unless the right is precisely described in the order. A.great rrajority of r.eserved water rights, however, have been created by interpretations of legislation by attorneys of the Executive branch and by the Ju:hcial branch. The Western States Water Council believes it would be very :irnp:>rtant to the solving of problems created by this procedure, to J:equest the Congress to also look canprehensively at the problems created by pre- vious procedures, and that they consider a legislative remedy. 'rhe western state do not understarrl the timidity of the Task Force in rrakinj reccmrerrlations to Congress, as the President's water p:>licy refonn has not expressed that kind of reservation on other issues with respect to taJci.rB initiatives and urging Congress to follow the policies deemed appropriate by the Administrative branch. In fact, legislation rray be the very best solution to the problem. In this way, future administrations would be round nore effectively than by the executive or.der proposed by the Task Force. The Western States Water Council believes that in the future, reservations should only be created by legislation and not by excutive order. Further, all water rights reserved in the future should be precisely identified in the legislation after very rreaningful consultation with the states involved. The Western State Ivater Council has, for a ntmiber of years, worked on various legislative proposals intended to -10- \ ..._~.._-. -