Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I . <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />.22. However, the Court also concludes that the bypass flows are part of ALP's <br />operational requirements. The operational requirements of ALP are not a component of <br />the Ute Tribes' decreed water rights. This Court determines that it does not have <br />jurisdiction to review or enforce such commitments in these cases. Nevertheless, ifBOR. <br />determines to decrease any seasonal component of the bypass flow requirements, the <br />decrease may affect other vested water users on the stream. Therefore, to protect against <br />such injurious impacts, it is necessary that the United States notify the Court, the State. <br />and potentially affected water users through the resume process of any detenni~tion to <br />decrease the bypass flow requirements and the specifics of such change reasonably in <br />advance of such a final decision. <br /> <br />23. The Court has determined that the Motions to Amend arid Change <br />Applications affect users of both the Animas and La Plata Rivers, because the 1991 <br />Consent Decrees and Motions to Amend and Change Applications set forth settlements to <br />the Ute Tribal claims on both rivers. Consequently, the Court rejects CPA's argument <br />that it should determine the Motions to Amend and Change Applications moot as to the <br />La Plata River and Case Nos. W -1603-76J and 02CW86. The Court finds as a matter of <br />law that there is no doubling effect of the water rights at issue in the Motions to Amend <br />and Change Applications as they are applied to the Animas and the La Plata Rivers, and <br />expressly precludes any interpretation that this Decree may result in a doubling of the <br />water right. <br /> <br />24. The Ute Tlibal Water Rights before the Court in the Motions to Amend <br />and Change Applications retain their character as Indian reserved water rights and are not <br />subject to abandonment. These cases do not present the issue of any transfer of water <br />rights or use of reserved water rights off either Ute reservation. Therefore, the issue of <br />off-reservation beneficial use is not before the Court at this time. <br /> <br />25. The Court finds no basis in law for CPA's allegations that the 2000 <br />Settlement Act Amendments grant Indian reserved water rights to entities other than the <br />Ute Tribes. <br /> <br />26. The Court fmds that the issue ofabandonment is not before this Court as a <br />matter of law because once the federal reserved water right has been quantified that <br />amount is then outside the state appropriation system. U.S. v. Citv and County of <br />Denver. Bv and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs, 656 P.2d 1,34 -35 (Colo. 1982). There is <br />also no basis in law for CPA's claims that the 2000 Settlement Act Amendments <br />(Applicant's Ex. 1) as to the Ute Tribal water right constitutes abandonment of some or <br />all of the Tribal water rights established by the 1991 Consent Decrees. See July 7 Order <br />at 13. <br /> <br />33 <br /> <br /> <br />27. This Court finds as a matter of law that the water rights settlements of the <br />United States for the benefit of the two Ute Tribes in other rivers (e.g., the Mancos, <br />Piedra, Pine, etc.) are not before the Court in any manner. Moving Parties have not <br />raised any such issue and nothing related to their Motions to Amend or Change <br />Applications does so. Indeed, all of the 1991 Ute Tribal settlements, including the <br />