WSP03365 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0256 CCNMENI'S COt~ SPEX::IFIC RIX:CMMENDATIONS OFel: TASK FOlO: A. Timetable for Identification and Quantification of Federal Water Rights 1. The Western States Water COtUlcil believes it should be acknavledged that this recCl11lleIX1ation is relevant only where a state does not have a procedure under which the united States can be joined under the ~1cCarran Arrer:dment. The procedure provide<1 by the ~lcCarran Arrerdment is Ixlth an adequate and highly satiSfactory method for ad- jwication and quantifying federal \vater rights. This recarrrendation with respect to the establislTnent of consumptive water rights should include sane very precise instructions when implemented as to the nature of the claims that should appropriately be alleged by the federal agency. Previous litigation has been significantly hampered by the federal governrrent citing theoretical and hypothetical needs that were based on full legal extension of all possible rights. For this to =ntinue would be in direct disregard of the President's rrerrorandum of July 12, 1978, and w:>uld significantly delay, canplicate, and increase the cost of the federal water right determination process. If reasonable starrlards are used to assert the federal reserved right, the five year timetable proposed by this recarr.endation is reasonable to at least identify claimed federal water rights in priority areas. The ten y~ar period fot the idontification of non-consumptive I uses as proposed, is too long i'lnd is not reasonab I e. StiJt" courts are not going to be wi I I InG to give federal agencies this period of time to quantify their non-consumptive uses. The ~estern States Hater Counel I sees no reason for the federi'll governrnei1t to delay their quantification of reasonably foreseeable uses (if such rights do exist) b2yond the five year period pro]?Osed by the Task Force for consumptive uses. On page 39 of the explanation for the recanrrendation, it is stated that, "It is essentiill, holoJever, that all these uses be quantified by the Federal Governrrent. " It must be recognized that, pursuant to the l.lcCarran l\r<eJx1ment, as litigation is pursued in state courts quantification will be accanplished by the state court process. T'nerefore, it is not essential that qu<mtification be conducted initially in all cases by the federal goverrurent. The acknOtvledgernent that there should be sane exceptions for agencies that are involved with planning cycles, is appropriate, as long as it is recognized that the federal agency has no option if, under the McCarran procedures, the state brings the agency into a state determination and therefore could mt be granted the 15 year €XerrqJtion proposed. -5-