|
<br />In sum, the court seemed mostly unimpressed with
<br />the scien@c theories proposed by the United States,
<br />and could not be convinced that the reservations of
<br />U.S. Forest Service lands supported the purpose for
<br />which the Un~ed States claimed the Instream flow
<br />channel maintenance rights.
<br />
<br />WATER aUAUTY
<br />
<br />Ground Water
<br />
<br />EPA's final 'National Guidance for Comprehensive
<br />State Ground Water Protection Programs' /Y'ISW
<br />#987) released January 19 was unaffected by a
<br />Clinton Administration directive of January 22, issued
<br />by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
<br />which withdrew a number of regulations signed in the
<br />final days of the Bush Administration. OMB Director
<br />Leon Panetta said that new officials must 'have an
<br />opportunity to review and approve new regulations'
<br />and ordered a hatt to the Federal Reaister printing of
<br />all rules that had been approved by Bush appointees,
<br />but not yet printed. Because the groundwater
<br />document was Issued as guidance, not as regulations,
<br />~ was not affected by the OMB directive.
<br />
<br />WATER RESOURCES
<br />
<br />WGA/WSWC Water Management Workshops
<br />
<br />The Western Governors' Association /Y'IGA) and
<br />the WSWC cosponsored a fourth workshop on water
<br />management in the West on February 18-19. The
<br />workshop followed three earlier meetings in Park City,
<br />Utah. Approximately 60 people attended, representing
<br />a wide array of interests associated with water
<br />management in the West. Craig Bell, WSWC Director,
<br />began by introducing Keith Higginson, WSWC Vice-
<br />Chair, who provided an Introduction and welcome on
<br />behalf of the Council. Mr. Higginson expressed the
<br />view that the workshop had a very appropriate focus:
<br />to assess current state capacity to achieve the goals
<br />developed at the earlier Park City workshops, to
<br />identify obstacles to enhancing this capacity, and to
<br />develop recommendations for overcoming these
<br />obstacles. Jo Clark, WGA Program Director, then
<br />provided some in~ial remarks concerning the
<br />opportune timing of the workshop and the chance to
<br />Influence national policies. She also introduced Reese
<br />Peck who represented Governor Mickelson of South
<br />Dakota, WGA co-lead for water. Mr. Peck provided his
<br />
<br />perspectives on the challenges facing his state and
<br />the West, and the hope that the workshop would be .
<br />helpful in addressing those challenges.
<br />
<br />Dave Getches, the workshop facilitator, then
<br />provided some further background and explained the
<br />goals of the workshop. A presentation by Norman
<br />Johnson, WSWC Legal Counsel, regarding a matrix on
<br />state water management which the Council had
<br />prepared in connection with its Albuquerque meetings
<br />followed. He explored both the evolution of state laws
<br />and policies respecting public interest cr~eria,
<br />instream flows, and watershed planning and
<br />management. Tom Bahr, Director of the Water
<br />Resources Research Institute at New Mexico State
<br />University, then presented a summary of a legal
<br />research project sponsored by the Powell Consortium,
<br />an alliance of western university instttutes for the study
<br />of water and the environment. The main focus of the
<br />papers was to analyze how federal programs impact
<br />state water management and water use, as compared
<br />to the 'Park City Principles' developed in the earlier
<br />workshops. Professor Charles DuMars, New Mexico
<br />Council member and member of the Powell
<br />Consortium, prepared a paper examining interstate
<br />compacts, the commerce clause and the adjudication
<br />of tribal water rights in the same context.
<br />
<br />Starting with a brief examination of the results of a .
<br />pre-workshop survey, Dave Getches led the group in
<br />a discussion of suggested recommendations
<br />consistent with the goals of the workshop. These
<br />recommendations were clustered and assigned to five
<br />workgroups, which spent time in the afternoon
<br />considering them, identifying obstacles to their
<br />implementation and, in some cases, suggesting ways
<br />the obstacles might be overcome. The work groups
<br />reported back to the larger group as the final matter of
<br />business on the meeting's first day. On the morning
<br />of the second day, a panel was asked to crttique the
<br />recommendations. A discussion followed with the
<br />entire group on the recommendations in light of the
<br />comments of the panelists. This evolved into an effort
<br />to identify consensus recommendations from the
<br />group. As a final activity, participants were asked to
<br />identify appropriate follow-up strategies, in light of the
<br />group recommendations. A report summarizing the
<br />activities, findings, and recommendations of the
<br />workshop will be prepared to go along with a
<br />summary of the first three Park City workshops. This
<br />document will be available from WGA in the future.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of .
<br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
<br />Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma
<br />
|