WSP05797 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,00:1113. . CCM1ENI'S COtl.:ER;U~ SPECIFIC RECQ.'1MSNDA'l'IONS OF THE TASK FOR:E A. Timetable for Identification and Quantification of Federal vlater Rights 1. The Western States Water Council believes it should be ackna.-Iledged that this recC1.llrlS'dation is relevant only where a state does not have a procedure wrler which the United States can be joined under the McCarran Alren:lment. '.rhe procedure provided by the HcCarran Amen:Jment is Ix>th an adequa.te and highly satisfactory IlEthod for ad- ju:l.ication and quantifying federal \vater rights. This reccrrrrerdation with respect to the establishnent of consumptive water rights should include scme 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 haiupered by the federal government citing theoretical and hyp:lthetical needs that were based on full legal extension of all p::lssible rights. For this to continue would be in direct disregard of the President's m=morandum of July 12, 1978, and M:luld significantly delay. cauplicate, 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 reccmrenclation is reasonable to at least identify claimed federal water rights in priority areas. The ten year period for the i~entification of non-consumptive uses as proposed, is too long and is not reasonable. Stat" courts are not yoing to be wi I ling to give federal agencies this period of time to quantify their non-consumptive USes, The ~estern States Water Counci I sans no ro~son for the federal governrrei1t to delay their quantification of reasonably foreseeable uses (if such rights do exist) beyond the five year periro proposed by the Task Force for oonsun]ptive uses. On page 39 of the explanation for the recanrrendation, it is stated that, "'It is essential, ho\>Jever, that all these uses be quantified by the Federal Governrrent. " It must be recognized that. pursuant to the /,lcCarran 1\m2n:1me.nt, as litigation is pursued in state =urts quantification will be accauplished by the state court process. Tnerefore, it is not essential that quantification be coIrlucted initially in all cases by the federal goverI1lT'ent. The aclmOlvledgenent 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 Mc:Carran procedures. the state brin:js the agency into a state determination and therefore =uld not be granted the 15 year exenption proposed. -5-