Laserfiche WebLink
3 ; <br /> Boulder Creek -Protection of instream flows under Colorado law <br /> Boulder Creek arises as near the Continental Divide in the mountains west of Boulder, <br /> Colorado. Historically, diversions on all three branches have dried up the creeks at various <br /> locations during periods of low flow --mostly in late summer and winter. <br /> The Forest Service threatened bypass flows on a special use permit required for a rebuilt <br /> pipeline needed by the city. Boulder pointed to its agreement with the Colorado Water <br /> Conservation Board(CWCB), the only entity that can hold instream flows under Colorado <br /> law, for instream flow protection consistent with the Forest Service standard. <br /> This innovative agreement combines new instream flow filings by the CWCB with some of <br /> Boulder's historic water rights to ensure adequate resources for aquatic habitat. The result <br /> is a respectable trout fishery and riparian habitat in the midst of an urban environment. <br /> While the Forest Service was at first unwilling to accept this arrangement, after extensive <br /> negotiations, they agreed the City's contract with the CWCB suffices for national forest <br /> purposes so long as it remains in effect and so long as the CWCB upholds and protects <br /> those instream flows. <br /> Hanging Lake <br /> In 1996, Instream flow and natural lake protections for Hanging Lake and East, West and <br /> Main Dead Horse Creek resulted from cooperative efforts between the regional forester and <br /> the CWCB. There, the CWCB obtained rights to all unappropriated flows in the basin to <br /> preserve the unique hydrologic and geologic environment including Bridal Veil Falls and <br /> Hanging Lake. Working together, the State of Colorado and the Forest Service protected a <br /> unique natural environment that provides outstanding recreation and aesthetic qualities <br /> which attract thousands of travelers from around the world. <br /> Examples in Other States <br /> There are success stories in other states as well. Arizona, Idaho and Montana have taken <br /> strides to work with the federal government rather than against it. But they are plagued by <br /> many of the same challenges we face in Colorado. In Arizona, a state process would <br /> guarantee consultation with the Forest Service. But the agency created a controversy <br /> where none needed exist by insisting it needed to "retain control." The USFS also sued in <br /> Idaho, claiming Idaho law is inadequate to protect federal interests in water uses on Forest <br /> lands. <br /> By contrast, the Bureau of Land Management requested the Idaho Water Resources Board <br /> hold instream flow and storage rights on federal lands. No federal-state tension exists on <br /> those successful efforts. In 1993, the Montana Compact Commission and the Forest <br /> Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on federal claims to water. <br /> The State and the Forest Service have been working out these issues,but any threat of <br /> bypass flows could potentially hinder their good work. <br /> Misplaced Criticism of State and Voluntary Efforts <br /> The minority of the Task Force mentioned the agency has "usually attempted"to respect <br /> the equities and that they have"tried"to accommodate facilities. But is it good enough to <br /> 7 <br />