WSP12606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BLACK CANYON INFORMATION PAPER 001250 Oct, 2000 The Colorado court also referenced United Slates v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, (1978), in which the Supreme Court upheld the New Mexico Supreme Court's ". . . 'diStinction between the primary purposes for which a federal reservation is created and the secondary uses of federal lands that may be pennitted or authorized by statute or administrative practice, and concluded that only the fonner provides a basis for reserved rights." 656 P.2d at 18. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded: We helieve that in these appeals, as in Cappaert and New Mexico. our real task lies not so much in an examination of federal power to reserve waters, but rather with the necessity to state the limits and contours of the exercise of such federal power. To that end, we approve the procedurE' utilized by the water court in determining the federal government's entitlements under the reserved water rights doctrine. For eachfederal claim of a reserved water right, the trier of fact must examine the documents reserving the land from the public domain and the underlying legislation authorizing the reservation; determine the precise federal purposes to be served by such legislation; determine whether water is essential for the primary purposes of the reservation; and finally determine the precise quantity of water - the minimal need as set forth in Caopaert and New Mexico - required for such purposes. However, absent an enunciation of a rule o/federallaw by the United States Supreme Court, absent congressional action, and absent impingement on vital federal interests, we hold that Colorado law governing the determination of water rights is properly applied as the rule of decision by which we determine the contours of the reserved rights asserted by the United States. 656 P.2d at 20. The Colorado Supreme Court also stated: We cannot accept the federal government's assertion that the National Park Service Act expands the purposes for which national monuments are granted reservations of water. . . . We are, in effect, asked to treat monuments as having the same recreational and aesthetic purposes as national parks. Our review of the statutory and legislative record convinces us that Congress intended national monuments to be more limited in scope and purpose than national parks. . . . National monuments were included in the National Park Service Act for administrative purposes - to provide for their management by the National Park Service within the Department of the Interior. .. The court concluded that <t. . . we must look to the purposes for which the monument was established, not to the purposes for which national parks were established, in determining the necessity for reserved water rights. 656 P ,2d at 28. Court Decision: The Colorado court decree, Water Division No.4, pertaining to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, March 3, 1986, is attached. It recognizes various conditional and absolute water rights. The Court directed the United States to file a quantification of the amounts of water needed in the Gunnison River to fulfill the purposes of the monument. The United States should file an application which specifically includes: 1. The legal description of the points comprising the beginning and ending of each stream segment for which a different amount of water is claimed. 2. The amount of water required during each week of the year, described in cubic feet per second of time, for the maintenance of minimum stream flows in each stream segment. C-2 ~ ~ ,~~ ,"' ..... . , :"-../:.'-~ . '~-~'-':J':~':\~;;-~-~~"'~:';;':::':~:'-' . , '~. _ _' .~}: : ."-~~ 1\'::> \;: '"