Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />0007 <br /> <br />completed (FEIS Section 6.2, page 6-5). Water adjudication is a matter of <br />State concern and may be a means by which the social and economic growth <br />issues will someday be addressed. It is my view that delay of a decision <br />is a variation of Alternative I, No Action (FEIS Section 2.2.1, page 2-15), <br />which denies the Cities' application. The Forest Service Special Use Regu- <br />lations, 36 CFR 251.54(h) provide for denial of applications when: <br /> <br />1. The proposed use would be inconsistent or incompatible with the <br />purpose(s) for which the Niltional Forest System lands are <br />managed, or with other uses; or <br /> <br />2. The proposed use would not be in the public interest; or <br /> <br />3. The applicant is not qualified; or <br /> <br />4. The use would otherwise be inconsistent with Federal and State <br />laws; or <br /> <br />5. The applicant does not or cannot demonstrate reasonable technical <br />or financial capability. <br /> <br />The Cities are entitled to a timely decision on their application. There <br />is no provision for delaying a decision indefinitely. I have no indication <br />that State water planning will be undertaken, or if undertaken, when it <br />would be completed. <br /> <br />Many commentors have criticized the lack of additional or expanded water <br />trade alternatives. There is an infinite number of such alternatives which <br />could be analyzed; however, there are no proponents or applications for <br />National Forest System land use from any holder of an adjUdicated water <br />right to implement any of the water trade alternatives. To delay a decision <br />and study further such remote and speculative proposals would, in my judg- <br />ment, be unreasonable. Further, such State-wide or similar studies would <br />result in the Forest Service conducting State water resource planning for <br />which there is no authority. <br /> <br />The Forest Service recognizes the primacy of the State of Colorado for <br />administration of water rights and uses w,ithin the State. The process of <br />water resource planning is quite properly a matter of State responsibility <br />and should be conducted and settled by the State (FEIS Section 1.2, page <br />1-6). I am forced into making a decision that somewhat overlaps State <br />jurisdiction. By approving this specific proposal, piecemeal water <br />development will continue. By denying the Forest Service portion of the <br />proposal, the Cities' opportunity to effectively develop their State- <br />decreed water rights would also be denied'. I do not know that the State <br />will ever develop a State-wide water plan;. The Forest Service would assist <br />and cooperate in development of a State-w,ide water plan and would gladly <br />use such a plan if one existed (FEISt Appendix A, page A-I6). <br /> <br />6 <br />