WSP03365 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0'264 . . As an alternative to the mjority reccmrerrlation, the DepartIrent of Justice recorrme..'lds that the United States only participate in ju:1icial procee:J.ings rreeting the requiranents of the l~cCarran ArreOOrnent. We take issue with the Justice Department's alternative on page 56, by which it would require establishrrent of federal standards to ".. . govern the participation of the United States in any ard all state proceedings regarding water...." The NcCarran Arren:Jrrent speaks for itself in setting out the parameters for federal participation in state water pro- ceedings. Furtherrrore, the pranulgation of additional criteria or standards urrler which the sufficiency of state proceedings is to be scrutinized is solely within the province of the courts and should not be interfered with by any agency of the executive branch of the federal goverrurent. \ \ 10. The McCarran Arrendrrent is unfortunately ambiguous on the question of whether or not state administrative proceedings rreet the requirements of the amendrnEint so as to provide states with jurisdiction to adjudicate federal reserved rights within their state administrative SystEmS. The legislative history of the act, however, indicates an intent to allow all the western states to adjudicate federal water . rights within the several state water resources management systems. Furthennore, the Western States Water Council cannot understand the basis for recorrrnending federal participation in state ju:licial procee::l.- ings ard against participation in administrative proceedings which,. of necessity, are reviewable before both state and federal judicial mchinery. The Justice Department I s position does nothing to further Presidient Carter's goals of allowing states to continue their primary role in water resource rnanagell'e!lt. I The recol~mendation tha-t 'The 'l!n'ite~'St"i-"s o.~rticipQte in administrative oroceedings is a much more reasonable and worthwhi Ie position. ." The position of the Justice Department, and to a less8r .~xtent. that of t~le Task Force i tso If, fa i I s to rocogn i ze thet tha interrelationship between fedAral and non-federal water rights on any givan stream syste~ as wel I as rGI~ted cpnsiderations of due process w~s tho impetus for providing consent to join the United States in unified proc8adings to adjudfcate rfghts to t~lO U.3::! of vlater. 11. The western states agree with the Task Force in its finding that the fErleral gavernrrent attempt to detennine a legal basis for. the payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory state filing ana other fees relating to applications for water rights. In our view, ~ihen the federal gOVerTlIlEl1t, acting in either its proprietary or fiduciary capacity, seeks to aoquire the right to use water within state boundaries, i.t should be required to pay the same scheduled fees as anyone else. I I , I , , i \ I I -12- , , , I \ \