Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />OOZl05 _ .. <br /> <br />- solve the problEmS crewe. by the previous practice of~till:>lishing <br />reserved water rights. The Secretary of Interior has, at this time, <br />offered his supp:)rt and =peration to western states in urging Congress <br />to enact reforms which the states feel are necessalY \-lith respect to <br />issues created by the water policy refonn effort armounced by the <br />President. It may 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 />creatErl in the future. <br /> <br />The vlestern States Water COlIDCil also believes that it "'"'QuId be <br />appropriate for the Administration to consider the option that water <br />rights in the future are to bG created only through the est.ablished <br />state systems and not by the dual, CUlllb2rsc:m2, confusing, and ineffective <br />process that has resulted fran the exercise of the reservation d=trine <br />in the past. <br /> <br />The ~'lestern States \qater Council agrees with the Task Force in that <br />all new water rights must respect existing rights with priorities that <br />are subsequent arrl subordinate to the existing rights. This must be <br />e}.:plicit in any creation of ne-l federal rights and can rrost effectively <br />be aCCOl1t>lished within the established state water right systems. <br /> <br />As a minimum, the l'Iestem States l-later Council concurs \-lith the <br />Task Force reccr.rrnendation that when specific quantities of water are not <br />identified in the future, a reserve of \-.'ater shall re deEmed not to have <br />been made. The Council urges that at least this portion of the Task <br />Force reccmnendation bG enacted by legislation. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Finally, the l'Iestern States l-later Council in its rejection of the <br />Solicitor's opinion \-lith regard to the existence of non-reserved water <br />rights across the \'Iest, feels that the Task Force position under Item 9 <br />is correct and is effective in rebutting the Solicitor's opinion the,t <br />there are fran coast to coast, in every state, non-reserved water <br />rights. The Westem States Hater Council relieves that as legislation is <br />contEmplated to identify the \-lay in which reserved water rights Hay 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 canpliance \-lith state substantive, as well as pr=edural, <br /> <br />water law. <br /> <br />E. Procedures for Adjtrlicating Federal Reserved Rights <br /> <br />9. The Task Force rep:>rt provides for greater participation <br />by the federal gover!lITl2nt within state water ::ight ,:,d~udication systems, <br />. ani the Task Force should be ccmreraed for this posltwn. Unforttmately, <br />the recarmendation -.,Iu-ggests the federal governrrent.. m;gh.t_cha II~ge state <br />jurisdiction where "manifest unfairness to federal interests would <br />result. " <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />-1\- <br /> <br />...-._~.- <br /> <br />_.,.--.__._~- _.- ---~-.__. --- .--~. - . -.--. ..---.' <br />