Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />OrlR~e the problEmS cn.ed by the previous practice Of!taJJliShing <br />4::ll'served water rights. The Secretary of Interior has, at this time, <br />offered his support and cooperation to western states in urging Congress <br />to enact reforms which the states feel are necessary with respect to <br />issues created by the water p:>licy refonn effort announced by the <br />President. It nay well be that the states and the Administration should <br />seriously consider legislation which could be supported by both parties <br />and would significantly limit the way reserved water rights are to be <br />created in the future. <br /> <br />The Western States l'later Council also believes that it would be <br />appropriate for the Administration to consider the option that 'vater <br />rights in the future are to be created only through the established <br />state systans and not by the dual, curnbersare, confusing, ard ineffective <br />process that has resulted fran the exercise of the reservation doctrine <br />in the past. <br /> <br />The Western States Water Council agrees with the Task Force in that <br />all neN ''iater rights must respect existing rights with priorities that <br />are subse:jUent ard subordinate to the existing rights. This must be <br />explicit in any creation of mOlv federal rights and can ITOst effectively <br />be aCC<Jrnf>lished IVithin the established state water right systerrcs. <br /> <br />As a minimum, the l'lestern States l'later Council concurs with t.he <br />Task Force recanmendation that when specific quantities of water are not <br />identified in the future, a reserve of water shall be deemed not to have <br />been made. The Council urges that at least this portion of the Task <br />Force recommendation be enacted by legislation. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Finally, the Western States Water Council in its rejection of the <br />Solicitor's opinion with regard to the existence of non-reserved water <br />rights across the West, feels that the Task Force position under Item 9 <br />is correct ard is effective in rebutting the Solicitor's opinion that <br />there are from coast to coast, in every state, non-reserved wateJ: <br />rights. The Western States Water Council believes that as legislation is <br />contanplated to identify the way in which reserved water rights may be <br />created in the future, that the legislation should include a declaration <br /> <br />by Congress that there are no non-reserved water rights which can be <br /> <br />exercised absent carpliance with state substantive, as well as procedural, <br /> <br />water law. . " <br /> <br />E. Procedures for Adjuiicating Fe:1eral Reserved Rights <br /> <br />9. The Task Force report provides for greater participation <br />by the fe:1eral governrrent within state water ::-ight ~~udication systems, <br />ani the Task Force should be camerrle:1 for this p:>s~twn.. Unfortunately, <br />the reccmrendation -,-suggests. the fe:1eral goverment --mtgh-t-cha II-e.ilge state <br />jurisdiction where "manifest unfairness to federal interests would <br />result." . <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />-11- <br /> <br />.~ <br />