My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05797
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05797
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 10:19:15 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:17:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8067
Description
Section D General Federal Issues/Policies-Section 7 Consultations
Date
6/1/1979
Title
Federal Water Rights 1973-83-Observations of the Western States Water Council Concerning the Report of the Federal Task Force on Non-Indian Reserved Rights
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />0020.33 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />of filing the notice of claim, if the reserved right as claimed is later <br />fOlllld by a court not to exist. The Task Force says that the states have <br />incentive to follow this procedure in order to avoid alternatives (b) <br />am (d) set out in the previous paragraph. <br /> <br />The solution to the problem which the states are asked to accept <br />daronstrates less than a full appreciation for how nost state systems <br />are operated. For states operating un::1er a rrarxlatory permit system, it <br />is generally not ]Xlssible for the state to assign to a new permit right <br />a priority date other' than the date of filing of the application for <br />permit. Prior to a state having adopted a mandatory permit system, it <br />is possible to have established a Hater right with a priority dating <br />frCITI first application of the water to beneficial use. This distinc- <br />tion perhaps explallls the diverse treatment which the Task Force says <br />federal agencies have received fran the states. <br /> <br />lastly, the recanrrerrlation of the Task Force that the federal <br />agencies and the individual states sit do<Vl1 and agree on the procedures <br />to be followed in notifying eachstat.e of all federal reserved right <br />claims should be welcaned by all parties. <br /> <br />C. Cut-Off Date for Assertion of New Reserved Rights on Existing <br />Reservations <br /> <br />7. The ]Xllicy sta.tanent en~hasizes quantification. Certaint.y <br />as to federal reserved water rights is highly desirable. HCMever, the <br />quantification process described in the stat€Il"en.t falls far short of the <br />desired objective. Quantification cannot l:e achieved by the federal <br />government merely setting forth what it claims even if they are set <br />forth in precise formula. Quantification in the desirErl sense can only <br />be reachErl through the vehicle of adjtrlication :in sare judicial or <br />quasi-judicial testing process. Normally the general adjulication <br />process as that tenn is generally understood in western water law, <br />should be the vehicle followed to obtain quantification of federal water <br />rights. <br /> <br />Assuming the desirability of quantification as the term is used in <br />the re]Xlrt, the Western states l'later Council believes the policy of <br />cutting off or determing not to assert reserved l:ights which are not <br />identified un::1er the "quantification of use" by the governrrent, is a <br /> <br />-9- <br /> <br />-,-,----..--_.... ---- -.- -- .-'-..--- ~- <br />- - <br />---- - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.