Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1066 <br /> <br />Mr. John Neuberger <br />January 12, 1977 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />It is therefore apparent to me that each sovereign has a role In the overall water <br />marketing program. Separate and distinct authorizations or permits must be <br />secured from each. It is for this reason that I have advised against execut- <br />ing a contract with the United States for the marketing of water. It Is <br />clearly illogical to contract for marketable water when the state may appro' <br />priate water under its own sovereign authority. <br /> <br />The logical approach, In my opinion, is to direct an applicant to seek a water <br />permit from the state; then to direct the perrr.it holder to the federal govern- <br />ment for the necessary permits, authorizations, and contracts. Among the items <br />which must be secured from the federal government, according to the now-agreeable <br />Secretaries of Army and Interior, is t'he water marketing contract. Except as <br />provided in Section 61-04-17 of the North Dakota Century Code, I do not share <br />their opinion that the contract is an essential element in the water use proce- <br />dure, but -- at least for the present -- I will leave that for resolution between <br />the United States and the holder of any valid water permit from the State of <br />North Dakota. <br /> <br />Consequently, the key provIsion of the Supplemental MOU Is the provision In <br />paragraph 5d which states: <br /> <br />"Industrial water applications received by the Department of <br />the Interior or the Department of the Army shall be immediate- <br />ly forwarded to the appropriate state for processing pursuant <br />to state law and procedures . II <br /> <br />This, I believe, recognizes the present sovereign authority of the State of North <br />Dakota over the Missouri River. <br /> <br />Sincere Iy, <br /> <br />ver~::yd~ <br /> <br /> <br />State Engineer <br /> <br />VF:MGS:so <br />cc: Governor Link <br />Attorney General Olson <br />