My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
23G
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
23G
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2010 1:32:36 PM
Creation date
6/28/2010 1:29:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
4/30/2004
Description
23G
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Executive Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Ultimately, the Okanogan court concluded that that case was "not a controversy over water <br />rights, but over rights -of way through lands of the United States, which is a different matter, and <br />is so treated in the right -of -way acts before mentioned." Id. at 1086 (quoting Utah Power & <br />Light Co v United States, 243 U.S. 389, 411 (1917)). <br />The Tenth Circuit has recognized that the Forest Service's authority over its lands may be <br />exercised to limit a water right holder's use of water. See City and County of Denver v <br />Bergland, 695 F.2d 465 (10` Cir. 1982). There the Tenth Circuit rejected Denver's argument <br />that its water rights prevented the Forest Service from regulating the right -of -way upon which the <br />city was building a water transmission system. Id. at 483. The Court ;of Appeals held that <br />although the water decree, determining the priority of water rights, prohibited the Forest Service <br />from challenging Denver's right to appropriate those waters, it had no effect on the agency's <br />ability to regulate Denver's use of National Forest lands — despite Denver's claims that the Forest <br />Service was interfering with its right to divert and utilize the water. Id. at 483 -84. In doing so, <br />the Tenth Circuit recognized both that the law had long held that a water right did not include the <br />right to use another's land and that the Organic Act "conferr[ed] upon the Forest Service the duty <br />to protect the forests from injury and trespass, and the power to condition their use and prohibit <br />unauthorized uses." Id. at 483 -84 and 476 (emphasis added). See also Diamond Bar Cattle Co <br />v. United States, 168 F.3d 1209 (10`' Cir. 1999) (affirming a district court's finding that <br />"Whether Plaintiffs own certain water rights ... does not change the fact that such rights do not <br />deprive the Forest Service of its statutory authority and responsibility to regulate the use and <br />occupancy of National Forest System lands .... "). <br />Title V of FLPMA repealed over thirty statutes which had granted rights -of -way across <br />-19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.