Laserfiche WebLink
Arapahoe/Roosevelt Forest that would be all too soon coming up for review, had been complex <br />and costly. With this in mind, an arrangement was formulated whereby the Forest Service would <br />issue new 20 year permits without by-pass flow requirements, with the condition that permitees <br />accommodate the goals of the Forest Service without reducing yield of user water rights. This <br />addressed the first issue of concern-channel maintenance in high mountain water sheds. <br />? To this end, water users negotiated a Joint Operations Plan (JOP) that allowed local users <br />• to determine and control the timing and arrangement of water releases for high mountain channel <br />• maintenance and provision of habitat. The JOP satisfied both the water users and the Forest <br />Service, but one organization objected and filed suit against the arrangement-Trout Unlimited. Its <br />? suit argued that the Forest Service had neglected its mission in negotiating the JOP. The case has <br />? been heard in U.S. District Court in Casper, Wyoming, but the judicial finding has yet to be <br />• announced. The FWS continues to hold to its position that the operation of the high mountain <br />• facilities on the Poudre river-even with the JOP in place-imposes jeopardy on listed species in <br />central Nebraska. The Forest Service, for its part, continues to identify and claim flows in <br />? national forests, in adjudications on the Klamath river in Oregon, and the Snake and its tributaries <br />? in Idaho. <br />• Joint Operations Plan <br />? <br />? The events leading to the JOP compromise solution emerged out of conflict that drew <br />? coverage in local media generally portraying the Forest Service as rigid agency out of control bent <br />• on depriving local water users of their water assets via bureaucratic subterfuge, and "blackmail." <br />• All-in-all the whole episode was viewed as just another horrible example of the Federal <br />government's war on the west. Therefore, it was important to thoughtful people in both <br />? communities-local water and federal environmental-that a solution be created that could serve <br />? both agendas in a constructive manner. Constituencies on both side needed a solution that could <br />? calm troubled waters. Essentially, the JOP determined three things: <br />1. the timing of releases of water from upstream reservoirs; <br />2. the environmental uses of that water; <br />3. and the legal environment within which releases are made. <br />Three local water user organizations, two Front Range cities and one mutual irrigation <br />company, agreed to coordinate releases from three reservoirs to provide habitat in high mountain <br />streams and the Poudre river, as well as ensuring no loss of yield or rights under Colorado law. <br />For the Forest Service's goals of trout fishery restoration, flows for habitat must occur <br />during the winter months, when fish in small mountain streams need water. The JOP puts 10 cfs <br />of continuous flow in the river bottom all winter, benefitting a stretch of river 60 miles long. <br />According to Colorado law, water not applied to legally-recognized beneficial uses is lost <br />to the appropriator, reducing the amount available to that right in future years. The water users, <br />therefore, were concerned that all water released under the JOP go directly to recognized <br />beneficial uses, such as municipal, industrial, or agricultural applications. The organization <br />farthest downstream from the high mountain reservoirs, the City of Greeley, has a beneficial use <br />38