WSP05797 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o rl-~.tJ .J G . . As an alternative to the majority recCJllll2!rlation, the Departrrent of Justice recomrends that the United States only participate in ju:licial proceedings rreeting the requirEments of the HcCarran Arren:Jment. We take issue with the Justice Department's alternative on page 56, by which it would require establishment of federal standards to "... govern the participation of the United States in any ani all state proceedings regardillg water...... The McCarran ArrerxJrrent speaks for itself in setting out the parameters for fErleral participation in state water pro- ceedings. Furthenrore, the pranulgation of additional criteria or standards under 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 governrrent. 10. The McCarran Amendment is unfortunately ambiguous on the question of whether or not state. administrative proceedings rreet the requirements of the arnenilment so as to provide states with jurisdiction to adjudicate federal reserved rights within their state administrative systems. The legislative history of the act, hOHever, indicates an intent to allow all the western states to adjudicate fErleral water, rights within the several state water resources management systems. Furthermore, the Western States Water Council cannot understand the basis for recorrmerrling fe:ieral participation in state jtrlicial proceed- ings and against participation in administrative proceedings which, of necessity, are reviewable before 1x>th state and fErleral judicial machinery. The Justice Department's position does nothing to further Presidient Carter's goals of allCMing states to continue their primaJ:y role in water resource management. / Thp. ,-ecolornen dat i on th',,-tfh',,' ;\!n'ite'~ S'tdtpS o'2rtj':iPJte in administrative proc8edings is a much more r'3asoneble nnd "IOrth"hi Ie position. .... The position of the Justice Department, and to a lesser extent, that ()f t:1t? TiJsk Force i 'rst-11 f, fa i Is to rccoCJni ze that the interrelationship het'deen federal and non-federal 'vlater r i 9 h t son a rl y g j V 8 n 5 t r G a,~ 5 y 5 t G r;l as \" Q I I as reI ate de? r\ sid 8 rat ion 5 of due pr0C'.15S \'I"S the imretus fer [)roviding consE;nt to join the United Sta{es in unified proC8Adings to adjudicate rights to tile U~.) of \"fc=.:-rcr. 11. The western states agree with the Task Force in its finding that the fErleral government attempt to determine a legal basis for' the payment of reasonable, non-o.iscr:iJninatory state filing anc1 other fees relating to applications for water rights. In our view, .1hen the federal government, acting in either its proprietary or fiduciaxy capacity, seeks to aCXJUire the right to use water within state boundaries, i.t should be required to pay the same scheduled fees as anyone else. -12- \ i \ I