WSP07982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. '" Z"" / '~.\. (~ (', ,I: i~' or;;j rrUtNFn-\ u OJ.. 0.. ; >~:/'i.tt.)).~J...)..:F~J STERN ~~::'fr';~ .A...:.I STATES WATER October 22, 1993 Issue No. 1014 DIR I ~9___~_ I [[-1J__ji TIIE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201/942 East 7145 So./ Midvale, Utah 64047 / (801) 561-5300 / FAX (801)255-%42 . editor - Norman K. Johnson typist - carrie curvin UllGATlON/WATER RESOURCES General AdjudicationlWashington . The Washington Supreme Court has held that the state Department of Ecology ryvDOE) has no authority to issue cease and desist orders to regulate water use without undertaking a general adjudication of the rights involved (Rettkowski v. Washington, No. 59086-9, Sept. 9, 1993). The case arose when ranchers who water their cattle at Sinking Creek complained to WDOE that ground water pumping by irrigators reduced the creek's flow. WDOE found a connection between the withdrawals and the creekflow, and that the ranchers held senior water rights. Accordingly, DOE ordered the irrigators to halt ground water pumping. No general adjudication of water rights had been conducted. The matter ultimately came before the Washington Supreme Court. . The court found that the two major issues in the case were whether WDOE had the authority to determine the priorities of water rights between the irrigators and the ranchers, and then whether it could issue enforcement orders. The court answered 'no' to both questions. The key was that no general adjudication had been undertaken., Comparing the situation to a bankruptcy proceeding, the court held that only after the judicial determination of the relative water rights (referring to the water resources available for use as 'an inadequate pie to divide') could the state regulate the rights. The court rejected WDOE's arguments that its enabling statutes, and the public trust doctrine, gave it authority to regulate unadjudicated rights. A dissenting opinion noted the appropriateness of. the bankruptcy law analogy, because 'the requirement that the courts exclusively determine conflicting water ohairman - Dave Kennedy' executive director - Craig Bell rights claims...shall surely result in the application of [such] law to the estates of the ranchers and irrigators....' Tt)e dissent concluded, 'To those who cry out that .the majority's unsettling opinion constitutes the end . of civilization,...do not despair. The legislature must now address ~self ..to a comprehensive water policy....' Washington has filed a motion for reconsideration of the opinion. WATER RESOURCES Central Arizona Project The 'Governors' Central Arizona Project Advisory Committee' has recently issued its final. report. Governor Fife Symington formed the committee, consisting of 34 members, in December, 1992 and charged it with developing recommendations to assure the long term viability of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). At the inaugural meeting last January he explained: 'The problem facing CAP is the significant underutilization of the resource. The project was designed on the assumption agriculture would use most of the water in the early years, [but] agricultural use has declined.... Underutilization has major potential consequences. First, it could result in a substantial . shift of CAP costs to the municipal/industrial sector. Second, ArizQna is leaving thousands of acre-feet of [its] CAP watllr in the Colorado River at a 'time when our neighbors:..are seeking additional water.... This situation creates a potential threat to Arizona's ability to hold on to its CAP entitlement. Finally,...the prospect of irrigation district default On federal loans brings the potential for Congressional intervention.... It is the Committee's charge to come up-with an Arizona solution to the...problem.' The Committee was organized to facilitate public involvement; three working groups and an 'interagency study team' were formed.