Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001985 <br /> <br />a mistake to characterize assertion of federal water rights as a federal <br /> <br />, - <br /> <br />taking of water that could otherwise be used to benefit states and <br /> <br />local Interests. On the contrary, the Task Force believes that federal <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />agencies can often secure needed water rights faIrly and adequately <br /> <br />without jeopardizing, and many times actually furtherIng, legitimate <br /> <br />state and private Interests. <br /> <br />G. Other Reasons for Optimism <br /> <br />Against the historical background of controversy, It Is noteworthy <br /> <br />that the few Instances where non-Indian federal water rights have been <br /> <br />or are being adjudicated allow for the hope that In most cases a satls- <br /> <br />factory accommodation of federal and state Interests can be achieved. <br /> <br />For example, several watersheds In Colorado have for several years been <br /> <br />Involved In federal adjudicatIons of all rights, not simply federal, to <br /> <br />use the waters of the streams. In the lower courts federal rights have <br /> <br />been recognized to the substantial, although not complete, satisfaction <br />of the federal Interests. The Federal Government Is raising several <br /> <br />Important Issues on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, but the all-out <br /> <br />collision of federal and state Interests which some theoreticians might <br /> <br />have predicted has failed to materlallze.~/ <br /> <br />14/ In the Matter of the United States of America. Water DivIsions <br />4," 5. and 6, Civil No. W-425, etc. <Colo. D.C., March 6, 1978), appeal <br />pending (Nos. 79-SA99 and 100, Colo. S. Ct. l. But~, In the Matter of <br />the Application of the United States of America, Water Dlv. I, Nos. <br />W-8439 and W-8788-9169 (Colo. D.C., June 5, 1979), where the state <br />court district Judge recently ruled that there are no reserved water <br />rights In Colorado. <br /> <br />-15- <br />