|
<br />WATER RESOURCES/WATER RIGHTS
<br />
<br />Grazing Refonn
<br />
<br />j'>'l' : .',
<br />As reported last week, the Senate continues to
<br />filibuster a House/Senate conference agreement,
<br />reached .as part of the Interior appropriations bill, to
<br />increase the fee for grazing livestock on federal land
<br />and impose other restrictions. Aithough the debate
<br />has centered on grazing fees, other issues, including
<br />water provisions in the bill, have been controversial
<br />ryvSW #1015) and the process by which the reform
<br />has been undertaken, amending an appropriations bill
<br />rather than using an open, public process, has been
<br />widely criticized.
<br />
<br />In response to a letter of concern from Colorado
<br />Governor Romer, Interior Secretary Babbitt replied in
<br />a letter dated October 24, and Senator Reid (D-NV),
<br />the range reform bill's chief sponsor, read the letter
<br />into the October 26th Congressional Record. The
<br />reply read in part:
<br />
<br />"...[N]othing in new Section 406(d) changes the
<br />traditional practice of acquiring water rights for
<br />livestock grazing on public lands under state law. It
<br />onlY ensures that, subject to vaiid existing water rights,
<br />such water rights be obtained in the name of the
<br />United States. This has long been the practice on the
<br />national forests, as well as state law in many western
<br />states.... ..
<br />
<br />"Your letter expresses specific concern that the
<br />Reid compromise 'could be construed to reserve a
<br />federal water right on federal lands not only for
<br />grazing but for any other purpose as well.' Apparently
<br />you are referring to language in the last sentence of
<br />Section 406(i)(2). But this sentence does not address
<br />federal/state relations in water law. it simply confirms
<br />the common sense principle that federal claims
<br />and...rights to water 'developed on public lands [shall
<br />be exercised] to benefit the public lands and
<br />resources thereon'....
<br />
<br />"You have also raised concerns about sections
<br />406(0), which directs the development of standards
<br />and guidelines that 'establish minimum conditions for
<br />the protection of rangeland ecological health,' and
<br />which shall include, among other things, 'restoration
<br />and protection of riparian values, such as healthy
<br />wildlife and fish habitat and diverse vegetation.'
<br />
<br />Nothing in this section addresses water rights or state-
<br />federal relationshiP~in th area of water; rather, it
<br />merely furnishes dir for the Department in
<br />implementation of' , n law,...
<br />
<br />"You have my assurance that the Department of
<br />the Interior will, if these provisions are enacted into
<br />law, interpret and apply them in conformance with
<br />their intent .. not to make drastic changes in state-
<br />federal relations in water law, but rather to ensure that
<br />water rights obtained under state law for grazing-
<br />related purposes on public lands serve federal
<br />grazing-related needs, and that the ecological health
<br />of federal rangelands is secured."
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Despite Secretary Babbitt's assurances, concerns
<br />continued to be raised throughout the West about the
<br />water rights-related provisions of the grazing bill.
<br />Subsequently, according to reports from Washington
<br />D.C" the Administration, in a further effort to break the
<br />filibuster, offered to agree to the amendment of
<br />Section 406(d) to read: "(d) WATER RIGHTS--Subject
<br />to valid water rights existing on the date of enactment,
<br />no riqhts to water develooed on public lands shall be
<br />obtained for grazing-related actions on public lands
<br />except pursuant to State law and in the name of the
<br />United States." Also, the last sentence of 406(i)(2)
<br />would be stricken in the "draft, clarifying amendment"
<br />the Administration has proposed.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />After examining the revisions, Governor Romer
<br />wrote a letter to Secretary Babbitt dated Nov. 4 saying:
<br />
<br />"After reviewing the 'draft, clarifying amendment'
<br />you forwarded to my office this morning, I am satisfied
<br />that...ambiguity can be corrected with this statutory
<br />language. I have asked a number of water law
<br />experts in Colorado to review the draft amendment,
<br />and those I have consulted assure me that the new
<br />language corrects the problem.... I am also
<br />encouraged by your willingness to...expand the
<br />process...for implementing standards and guidelines.
<br />
<br />"In conclusion, I think it is in the best interest of all
<br />parties to get beyond the current deadlock. I support
<br />these changes, and urge that they be adopted,
<br />together with the bill currently before the U.S. Senate."
<br />
<br />The next vote to defeat the Senate filibuster is
<br />scheduied for November 10.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Govemors of .
<br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, Calijomia, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
<br />Oregon, South Dalkota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma
<br />
|