Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2156 <br /> <br />ignores many &1pre:.1e Court decisions, as well as the results of the earlier <br /> <br />Colorado adjudication nC1.ol before the State Suprerre Court.a! In the judgment <br /> <br />of the Task Force, the )!rincipal (and ironical) effect of such an erroneous <br /> <br />decision will De to delay quantification; i.e., the time required to reverse <br /> <br />this ruling on appeal could otherwise be spent adJudicating water rights. <br /> <br />'Ibis Colorado Water Division U case is a reminder that reachiny <br /> <br />a complete accommodation of federal riyhts to state interests will not <br /> <br />always be easy. l>breover, the TalOk Force is not necessarily of the o~inion <br /> <br />that the Colorado system should serve as a mcdel for other states. Never- <br /> <br />theless, the expel"ience in Colorado Water Divisions 4, t> and 6 allaYS us <br /> <br />to strike an optimistic note that these problems may not be as intractable <br /> <br />in fact as some miyht perceive them to be in theory. 'Ibe principal reasons <br /> <br />for this optimism seem to be: (1) l>bst federal reservations are located <br /> <br />high on the watersneds,22! wnich means that the establishment of a federal <br /> <br /> <br />reserved riyht does not ilIIpair many upstream users because these users do <br /> <br />not exist in substantial nllubers. (2) l>bst of the federal reserved rights <br /> <br />do not involve sUl:lstantial coI\S\Ir.'fltive uses. '1ypical COl15lIl'ptive uses - <br /> <br />stoch:wateril19, recreation, hLlllan COl1SlIrFtion -- are minimal <X:Ilpared to the <br /> <br />21/ In the Matter of the Application of the United States of Alrerica, <br />Water Div. 1, !'os. W-8439 and W-8788-91b9 (Colo. Dist. Ct. June 5, <br />1979), appeal pending (No. 79-51\344, Colo. Sup. Ct.). <br /> <br />22/ See United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. at 699, n. ] (1977). <br /> <br />-25- <br />