Laserfiche WebLink
2. The State's position has not changed. The issue in that case was the future <br /> construction of new facilities that would require a permit to build a structure in a <br /> national forest, not existing facilities. <br /> Kent Holsinger 2 <br /> 3. First, the Forest Service has obtained decrees for water rights that are not for instream <br /> flows (e.g., for firefighting, ranger stations, and campgrounds) without controversy. <br /> As for instream flow rights, the Forest Service obtained a consent decree for reserved <br /> rights in Water Division 3 (the Rio Grande basin) last year. There are ongoing <br /> reserved rights negotiations in Water Divisions 2 (the Arkansas River basin) and 7 <br /> (the San Juan River basin),but these have been hampered by the Forest Service's <br /> changes of position. <br /> As to appropriative rights, in the mid-1980s, the Forest Service purchased several <br /> existing irrigation rights in the Aspen area and changed them to instream flow rights <br /> in water court. However, Colorado law now clearly states that the CWCB is the only <br /> entity that may be granted a decree adjudicating instream flow rights. Therefore, the <br /> State believes that the Forest Service must go through the CWCB to protect instream <br /> flows through appropriative water rights. <br /> Colorado's instream flow statute invites participation by federal agencies and the <br /> CWCB has been very willing to cooperate with the Forest Service, as it did in the <br /> case of Hanging Lake/Dead Horse Creek. The Forest Service, unfortunately, has not <br /> responded to our request for recommendations for instream flow protection for the <br /> coming year. <br /> 4. Colorado instream flow rights can provide permanent protection for instream flows in <br /> national forests. The CWCB has offered to enter into agreements with the Forest <br /> Service assuring that it will continue to enforce its rights. <br /> The State of Colorado recognizes there is room to improve upon these areas. For this <br /> reason, we have urged our congressional delegation to support increased funding the <br /> USGS stream gages and we have entered into agreements with other entities, <br /> including the Colorado chapter of Trout Unlimited, to monitor stream levels. <br /> Nevertheless, from 1977 to the present, the CWCB has filed a total of 694 Statements <br /> of Opposition to protect its instream flow water right appropriations. <br />