<br />!
<br />!
<br />
<br />acre-feet of waler. Exempted CVP facilities deliver
<br />about 7M acre feet. Thus, if a flat surcharge were
<br />otherwise appl ed westwide, it would amount to
<br />between nit a d $1.15 per acre-foot. Concern has
<br />been expresse by some water user groups because
<br />the surcharge applies to all reclamation projects,
<br />whether or not hey are paid out.
<br />
<br />UTlGATlON bRIGHTS
<br />
<br />
<br />ashington
<br />
<br />The Washin on Supreme Court has affirmed a
<br />state trial court decision establishing the quantity of
<br />reserved water rights to which the Yakima Indian
<br />Nation is entitl d by treaty, Washinaton v. Yakima
<br />Reservation Irri ation District, No. 57798-6 (Apr. 2,
<br />1993). The co rt noted the case involves thousands
<br />of parties and will 'significantly impact the economy
<br />and future of those living in the Yakima River Basin.'
<br />The trial court had previously divided the case into
<br />four "procedural pathways,' one of which was the
<br />federal reserved rights for Indian claims.
<br />
<br />On motions for summary judgment the trial court
<br />found that the Yakima Indian Nation's rights to water
<br />from the Yakima River for irrigation purposes were: (1)
<br />147 cubic feet per second with an 1855 priority date
<br />by an order of the Secretary of I nterior dated 1906; (2)
<br />573 cubic feet per second with an 1855 priority date
<br />by order of an act of Congress in 1914; (3) 250,000
<br />acre-feet per year with a 1905 priority date under a
<br />1921 "Warren Act' contract between the Bureau of
<br />Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation; and (4)
<br />100,000 acre-feet per year with a 1905 priority date
<br />under a 1936 'Warren Act' contract that was ratified by
<br />Congress in 1940. The trial court also found that the
<br />Yakima Indian Nation's diversions of water (in addition
<br />to those just described) for commercial, industrial and
<br />other non-agricultural purposes were not in fulfillment
<br />of the primary purposes of the treaty, and therefore
<br />were limited to quantities that may be established
<br />under state law.
<br />
<br />The trial court held that the Yakima Indian Nation's
<br />reserved water rights for fish have been substantially
<br />diminished. The Washington Supreme Court said,
<br />"The maximum quantity to which the Indians are
<br />entitled as reserved treaty rights [for fish] is the
<br />minimum instream flow necessary to maintain
<br />anadromous fish life in the river, according to annual
<br />
<br />prevailing conditions. This diminished reserved
<br />right...has a priority date of time immemorial. .
<br />Additional instream flow for fish...is subordinate to
<br />vested irrigation water rights.' Finally, the trial court
<br />held that a consent judgment entered In federal court
<br />in 1945 is binding on all parties to that judgment
<br />including the Yakima Indian Nation, which was
<br />represented in the proceeding by the United States.
<br />
<br />The Washington Supreme Court was faced with a
<br />number of challenges to the trial court's decision, and
<br />thus addressed a number of issues on appeal. Its
<br />opinion outlines a chronology of legislation, litigation,
<br />and administrative action affecting water rights in the
<br />Yakima River Basin and describes pertinent
<br />background legal principles. Based on this review, the
<br />supreme court affirmed the trial court's ruling.
<br />
<br />WATER QUAUTY
<br />
<br />Watershed Protectio~PA
<br />
<br />EPA's Office of Water has recently published 'The
<br />Watershed Protection Approach . Annual Report
<br />1992.' It notes that "Watershed protection...is an
<br />integrated, holistic strategy for more effectively
<br />restoring and protecting aquatic ecosystems
<br />and...human health (e.g., drinking water supplies and .
<br />fish consumption). This approach is a renewed effort
<br />by [EPA] to focus on hydrologically defined drainage
<br />basins - watersheds - rather than on areas arbitrarily
<br />defined by political boundaries.' The report explains
<br />that EPA is pursuing a five-pronged strategy for
<br />adopting watershed management. The components
<br />are: (1) try it out; (2) advertise it; (3) align programs;
<br />(4) develop tools; and (5) measure success. For more
<br />information on the report (EPA840-S-93-001, Jan.
<br />1993), or for general information on EPA's watershed
<br />protection approach, contact Policy and
<br />Communications Staff, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
<br />and Watersheds, U.S. EPA 401 M Street S.W.,
<br />Washington, D.C. 20460; (202) 260-9108.
<br />
<br />PEOPLE
<br />
<br />The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
<br />California has named John R. Wodraska as general
<br />manager. He replaces Carl Boronkay, who retired in
<br />March after nine years as general manager.
<br />Wodraska was Executive Director of the South Florida
<br />Water Management District.
<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 />
|