WSP12258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STE STATES WATER . DIR SC Jl ~ ary 4, 1994 Is~e No. 1029 _..;:!J 0, (' ~ 5"" u t ;)..' ABC THE WEEKLY NEWSLEITER OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL Creekview Plaza, Suite A-201/942 East 7145 So. / Midvale, Utah 84047 / (801) 561-5300 / FAX (801) 255-9642 Editor - Norm Johnson Typist - Carrie Curvin LfnGATlON/WATER RIGHTS Colorado/General Adjudication Filing Fees . The state district court in Colorado's Water Division NO.4 recently issued: (1) an order directing the United States to pay filing fees charged under Colorado statutes: and (2) a stay of proceedings until the fees are paid, Concerning the Applications for Water Rights of: the United States.../n Delta, Gunnison, Mesa and Montrose Counties..., Case Nos. 93-CW-227 to 230, (Jan. 27, 1994). The case began when the United States applied for the adjudication of water rights in four pending actions without the accompanying filing fee ryvSW # 1022). Instead, federal attorneys informed the Colorado court that the United States was exempt from paying filing fees because of its sovereign immunity, given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Idaho ryvSW # 990). The judge requested briefing from the parties on the issue of whether or not the. United States must comply with Colorado statutes and pay $80 for ea~h of ~s water right applications. . The court's order analyzed the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Idaho, and emphasized the difference between the Colorado and Idaho filing fees. It said: "Colorado has no variable rate or component [in its filing fee system], and the legislature has not tried to dress a 'cost' in 'fee clothing' in an effort to avoid the prohibitions of the McCarran Amendment. Rather the statutory filing fee simply mirrors what an ordinary litigant in a civil case would pay to file a lawsuit." The court concluded that: "the McCarran Amendment does not waive the immunity of the United States from paying some fees, and the nominal statutory filing fee assessed by the Colorado water court is certainly within the ambit of this waiver." The decision will likely be appealed. Chairman - Dave Kennedy Executive Director - Craig Bell WATER RESOURCES Water Supply Outlook Unseasonably warm temperatures and below average precipitation throughout much of the West may have renewed concerns over drought. As of January 1, projected spring/summer runoff amounts for the Arkansas River and most of ITS tributaries range from 70-100% of average. Alaska's snowpack is about average, although an unseasonably warm fall raised the snow line elevation. In southeast Alaska, rain, rather than snow, fell throughout December. Runoff in the Colorado River Basin is forecast to be below average. Upper basin snowpacks are 65% of average, and below average runoff is expected in the Green and San Juan Rivers. In the Lower basin, below average conditions and much below average runoff are expected in Arizona, in contrast to last year's very wet weather. The Columbia-Snake River system runoff estimates are at the lowest since 1988. Fall prGcip!t:Jticn and snowpack rar.gE? from 75-80% in the north and 50-60% in the southern parts of Idaho and Oregon. Similarly, runoff forecasts range from 60-90%, with 75% expected at The Dalles. . PrecipITation across the east slope of the Sierras and northern Nevada is only about 55% of normal, and spring runoff is expected to be only around 50%. On the Utah side of the Great Basin, snowpack is much below average, and less than 50% in many areas. Below-average runoff forecasts are between 55-80%. Streamflow in the Missouri River Basin should range from 70-90%, although runoff in the South Platte and Laramie Rivers is forecast to be 90-115%. Rio Grande runoff is forecast at 60-85% of average in Colorado and along the mainstem, while forecasts for tributaries in New Mexico range from 75-125%. In California, the first water supply projections for the San