Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />