BOARD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4 on hold pending the outcome of that process. Several technical meetings have been held, but more work remains to be done. . Discussion: Applications for instream flow water rights in Water Divisions 2 and 7 have been pending since the '70s. The claims are for "channel maintenance flows" allegedly needed to secure favorable conditions of water flow for downstream water users. After a lengthy and expensive trial, the State and water users defeated the United States' claims for channel maintenance t10ws in Water Division 1. Shortly afterward, the Forest Service responded by seeking to require the owners of existing water facilities inthe national forests to bypass water as a condition of permit renewals. The resulting controversy led water users, the Forest Service, and the State to begin negotiating a compromise that would provide protection and certainty for existing facilities in exchange for the recognition and protection of specified flows within the forests. The parties stipulated to a decree in Water Division 3, signed by the Water Judge on March 30, 2000. This settlement approach works in the Rio Grande basin, where new water development on or above the national forests is not anticipated. Future uses continue to be an issue in negotiations in Divisions 2 and 7. 6. Forest Service Reserved Rights Cases, Case Nos. W-1146-73 et aI., Water Division 7. Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for channel maintenance purposes? Decision: Technical representatives of the Forest Service, the State, and the Southwestern . Water Conservation District continue to work on assessing streams in the forests to determine both Forest Service and water user needs and to see if the two can be reconciled. The parties' negotiation team met on February 22, June 5, and September 6 to assess progress so far. The technical committee is close to completing its initial review of the forest streams, but then plans to revisit areas where it was unable to reach a consensus. We put off the negotiating meeting scheduled for the end of November to allow the technical committee more time to complete its recommendation. We have begun drafting language to describe some of the settlement concepts discussed by the technical committee. After the technical committee completes its work, however, the main negotiating committee will have to review each recommendation, and probably meet with all individual water users, before a complete settlement proposal can be put together. Trout Unlimited has been allowed to intervene, and now has requested participation in the settlement discussions. Its interest in settlement - as opposed to litigating to make the Forest Service demand more water - is not clear, and the objectors have refused to include TU in the negotiations. The technical committee still has work to complete and we propose to put off the next negotiating meeting until May. Discussion: See discussion for Division 2 case for general background. It is still too early in the process to assess whether settlement is likely in this division. .