Laserfiche WebLink
<br />states and local interests. on the contrary, the Task Force relieves that <br /> <br />federal agencies can often secure needed water rights fairly and adequately <br /> <br /> <br />without jeopardizing, and many times actually furthering legitimate state <br /> <br />and private interests. <br /> <br />H. Other Reasons for Optimis\l <br /> <br />Against the historical bii<:l<l:lround of controversy, it is noteworthy that <br /> <br />the relatively few instances where federaloon-Indian water rights have oeen <br /> <br />or are being adJudicated allw for the hope that in Il'OSt cases a satisfactory <br />accamodation of federal and state interests can be achieved.~ For exanple, <br />several watershedS in COlorado have for several years been urdergoing adjudi- <br /> <br />cations of all rights, not sinply federal, to use the waters of the streams. <br /> <br />In the HDSt advanced of these cases, federal riyhts have been rt!CO:lnized to <br /> <br />the substantial, altnougn not catlplete, satisfactwn of the federal interests. <br /> <br />'lbe federal government is raising several iItp:>rtant issues on appeal to the <br /> <br />Colorado Supreme Court, but the all-Qut collision of federal and state interests <br /> <br />which saae miynt have predicted has failed to materialize.~ <br /> <br />On the other hana, in another of these ColoradO cases (Water Division <br /> <br />ill) tne state trial court has accepted the argu=t of the City of Denver <br /> <br />that there are no federal reserved water rights in Colorado, a ruling which <br /> <br />19/ See Trelease, "Federal Reserved Water Rights Since the l'LLlC," 54 <br />Denver L. J. 473, 491-92 (1977). <br /> <br />20/ In the Matter of the United States of America, Water DivisJ.Ons <br />'4,' 5, and 6, Civil No. W-425, etc. (Colo. Dist. Ct., March 6, 197tl), <br />appeal pendiny (Nos. 79-sA9~ and 100, Colo. SUp. Ct.). <br /> <br />-24- <br />