|
<br />reached agreement, voting to accept a compromise
<br />worked out by Interior Secretary Babbitt, Senator Reid
<br />(D-NV), and key House democrats. Although the
<br />debate has centered on proposed grazing fees hikes,
<br />controversy has also developed over incorporation of
<br />other reforms advanced by Babbitt, including new'
<br />environmental regulations, enforcement provisions,
<br />and an end to the policy of allowing grazing permit
<br />holders to claim water rights or hold title to range
<br />improvements on federal property. The provisions
<br />relating to water resources, contained in H.R. 2520,
<br />are principally: (1) Section 406(d), which provides that:
<br />'Subject to valid water rights existing on the date of
<br />enactment, no water rights shall be obtained for
<br />grazing-related actions on public lands except in the
<br />name of the United States;' (2) Section 406(i)(2)(last
<br />sentence): 'The Unhed States shall assert its claims
<br />and exercise its rights to water developed on public
<br />lands to benefit the public lands and resources
<br />thereon;" and (3) Section(406)(m): "Subject to valid
<br />rights existing on the date of enactment of this section,
<br />all rights to permanent improvements contained on or
<br />in public lands are vested in the United States."
<br />
<br />While the above provisions can be variously
<br />interpreted, their ambiguity has raised concerns
<br />among many western state representatives that the
<br />provisions could be construed as an assertion of new
<br />federal water rights and a resulting regulatory
<br />preemption of state water law. The potential for such
<br />claims is seen as being in sharp contrast to the
<br />Administration's announced policy that the Bureau of
<br />Land Management would simply file with states for
<br />sole title to water rights connected with water related
<br />to range improvement projects, with the aim to make
<br />BLM policy consistent with Forest Service policy.
<br />
<br />In response to the above language, for example,
<br />Wyoming Governor Sullivan recommended in a letter
<br />to Senator Wallop (R-WY) dated October 25 that 'the
<br />vague, ambiguous language in Sections 406(d) and
<br />406(i) (2) should be amended to avoid future confusion
<br />and the effect upon state water rights administration.
<br />Since the reform policies were first made public, the
<br />BLM and the Administration have said that water rights
<br />changes will not affect state primacy.... The current
<br />compromise language, some of which was newly
<br />inserted, is a 'water lawyers dream come true' and
<br />should be eliminated or modified to maintain a
<br />consistent and firm congressional deference to the
<br />states on water rights.' He then recommended
<br />
<br />specific deletions and additions that "will maintain
<br />these historic relationships." A similar letter was sent
<br />to Senators Hatfield (R-OR) and PaCkwood (R-OR) on
<br />behalf of Oregon Governor Roberts. Colorado
<br />Governor Romer also provided a letter to the Senate
<br />leadership expressing his reservations about the bill,
<br />which include concern over the water rights
<br />provisions. He concluded, "If passed in its present
<br />...ambiguously worded form, the Reid amendment
<br />could be construed to reserve a federal water right on
<br />federal lands not only for grazing but for any other
<br />purpose as well. Such an outcome unnecessarily
<br />exceeds the scope of rangelands management reform,
<br />and could undermine state water allocation laws and
<br />the rights created under those laws.'
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The governors reiterated the position of the
<br />Western Governors' Association ryvGA) about the
<br />process used to produce the bill. A WGA letter
<br />cautioned that "rangeland reform is complex, with the
<br />potential result of healthier land and sustainable rural
<br />communities. It shouid not be done hastily, opening
<br />the door to unintended or un-debated results....
<br />Therefore, western governors are not supportive of the
<br />process that led to this proposal.... We are not
<br />supportive of management practices being codified
<br />through the appropriation process. This forecloses
<br />opportunities for constructive input which leads to
<br />policies that meet our common goals."
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Opponents have failed three times to break the
<br />Senate filibuster. The FY94 Interior appropriation
<br />continues to be accomplished through a continuing
<br />resolution. Secretary Babbitt has, reportedly,
<br />promised to pursue administratively the tougher
<br />grazing reform measurers he originally proposed If the
<br />deadlock is not broken.
<br />
<br />PUBUCATlONS
<br />
<br />The Rocky Mountain Institute has recently released
<br />two reports: (1) 'Feedback and Irrigation Efficiency,'
<br />Showing the importance of providing farmers with
<br />information to enhance the efficiency of their irrigation
<br />decisions; and (2) 'Linking Water and Energy Savings
<br />In Irrigation,' discussing the connection between water
<br />and energy efficiency in irrigation, and illustrating with
<br />case studies how energy utilities can help farmers
<br />become more efficient irrigators. For copies ($6 and
<br />$7, respectively) contact RMI, 1739 Snowmass Creek
<br />Road, Snowmass, CO 81654-9199; (303) 927-3851.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Govemors 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 />
|