|
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />(I" < ""j'
<br />lJl 0 \. "
<br />
<br />April 2, 1993
<br />" ~~pr~~
<br />'Y .> '.' -,'/ ;"
<br />~;;/ 1'?t0~\
<br />_"f ," ;.11rn
<br />-.:' J,-~~;<'({~I i! '-:~,
<br />." 'J /, -_ -...J
<br />,~-.!i .}
<br />" '::l1lC", ~ , ,
<br /><.\ 0
<br />C'\
<br />''.
<br />/"
<br />
<br />WESTERN
<br />STATES WATER
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />TIIE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL
<br />
<br />Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201/942 East 7145 So. 1 Midvale, Utah 84047 1 (801) 561-5300 1 FAX (801) 255-%42
<br />
<br />editor - Tony Willardson
<br />
<br />typist - carrie Curvin
<br />
<br />CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE
<br />
<br />House Natural Resources Committee
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The new House Natural Resources Committee,
<br />chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), continues to
<br />draw western representatives, as did the old Interior
<br />and Insular Affairs Committee. Of 43 members, 24
<br />represent 12 western states. Eight are from California.
<br />Western state committee members are; Democrats -
<br />Rep. George Miller (CA), Chair, Pat Williams (Ml),
<br />Richard Lehman (CA) , Bill Richardson (NM), Peter
<br />DeFazio (OR), Tim Johnson (SO), Larry LaRocco (10),
<br />Neil Abercrombie (HI), Calvin Dooley (CA), Karan
<br />English (AZ), Karen Shepherd (Ul), Howard Berman
<br />(CA), Patsy Mink (HI); and Republicans - Don Young
<br />(AK), Ranking Minority Member, Jim Hansen (Ul),
<br />Barbara Vucanovich (NV), Elton Gallegly (CA), Bob
<br />Smith (OR), Craig Thomas (yVY), John Doolittle (CA),
<br />Wayne Allard (CO), Keo Calvert (CA) , Scott Mcinnis
<br />(CO), and Richard Pombo (CA). The committee's
<br />jurisdiction includes publiC lands, parks and natural
<br />resources generally, interstate water compacts,
<br />irrigation and reclamation, and Indian affairs.
<br />
<br />Senate Environment Committee Hearings
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The Senate Environment and Public Works
<br />Committee has begun a series of hearings on the
<br />development of a consistent and un~ied national
<br />environmental strategy. Committee chair Max Baccus
<br />(D-Ml) wants to determine whether an integrated
<br />approach can be taken to the reauthorization of a
<br />number of important environmental laws (such as the
<br />Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act,
<br />the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the
<br />Endangered Species Act (ESA)). The hearings will
<br />investigate the interplay between provisions of the
<br />statutes, with an eye toward coordination. An
<br />
<br />chairman - Dave Kennedy
<br />executive director - craig Bell
<br />
<br />important issue will be whether improvement in
<br />reaching environmental goals can be achieved
<br />through an integrated approach to the statutes.
<br />
<br />UTlGATlON
<br />
<br />Public Interest Protection
<br />
<br />The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that the
<br />director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources
<br />(IDWR) appropriately made local public interest
<br />determinations with respect to the proposed
<br />amendment of water permits issued before the state's
<br />public interest statute was enacted, Hardv v.
<br />Hiooinson, S.Ct. No. 19262 (Mar. 25, 1993). The facts
<br />in the case were not disputed. Hardy filed an
<br />application with IDWR to amend two of his water
<br />permits by adding an additional point of diversion to
<br />each. The IDWR approved the application with
<br />conditions based on local public interest findings.
<br />Hardy appealed the conditions, arguing that IDWR
<br />improperly applied the local public interest standard
<br />because he sought only to amend a previously
<br />granted permit. Hardy also argued that the IDWR
<br />exceeded its authority in requiring him to maintain a
<br />measuring device at his new point of diversion
<br />because the diversion was located in an area which
<br />had no organized water district and no water masters.
<br />
<br />The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that IDWR
<br />properly considered the local public interest in
<br />reviewing Hardy's application to amend his water
<br />permits, and that it was within IDWR's authority to
<br />require Hardy to install a measuring device at the
<br />proposed new point of diversion. The court, however,
<br />remanded the case to IDWR for further findings
<br />regarding the conditions intended to protect the local
<br />public interest. The IDWR director apparently based
<br />his public interest finding on an environmental
<br />
|