Laserfiche WebLink
include discussions on potentially transferring interests in water rights with lands the <br /> Forest Service has acquired (via purchase or land exchange) to the CWCB for instream <br /> flow purposes. Discussions in Region Two continue in the "Pathfinder Project" which <br /> hopes to resolve controversies related to flows, travel management, etc. on the Gunnison <br /> and Uncompaghre National Forests (GMUG). The State of Colorado appreciates the <br /> effort and is an active participant, but new the forest planning regulations would hinder <br /> an already onerous federal process to the point discussions may be fruitless. <br /> Success Stories <br /> Several examples bolster the State's contention that environmental purposes are best <br /> fulfilled by cooperation with the states and water providers. <br /> Operational changes in the Cache la Poudre River, <br /> Water storage can serve two purposes -providing water for municipal and agricultural <br /> purposes and augmenting streamflows to enhance aquatic habitat. In fact, the Division of <br /> Wildlife cited naturally occurring low winter flows as the limiting factor in the Poudre <br /> River fishery. Thanks to a cooperative agreement between water providers and the Forest <br /> Service, aquatic habitat is protected above and beyond historic conditions. <br /> While water providers disagreed that the Forest Service had the legal authority to impose <br /> bypass flows, they worked with the Forest Service to develop a plan for the coordinated <br /> operation of a number of reservoirs located in the Poudre River headwaters. This "Joint <br /> Operation Plan" (JOP)was designed to optimize aquatic habitat on National Forest lands <br /> without causing a loss of the water supply. Under the JOP, 3,000 acre-feet of storage water <br /> is released for beneficial uses when it will also augment low wintertime flows. <br /> The Poudre River JOP provides a case study of the potential for optimization of the <br /> operation of water supply facilities to attain National Forest purposes without causing a <br /> loss of water supply from these facilities. When comparing the JOP with bypass flows <br /> during a series of years, more environmental benefits, and more water, derive from the <br /> cooperative agreement. <br /> Ironically, Trout Unlimited rejected the JOP and sued the USDA alleging the Forest <br /> Service not only has authority, but an obligation to impose bypass flows. The parties to the <br /> Trout Unlimited v. USDA case are now entering briefs with the federal district court in <br /> Colorado. The State of Colorado joined as a defendant intervenor in the case. The States <br /> of Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico,Nevada and Arizona have all filed amicus briefs <br /> to the effect that the U.S. Forest Service has no legal authority to impose bypass flows. <br /> That seven Western states have weighed in on this issue speaks volumes. <br /> Boulder Creek-Protection of instream flows under Colorado law <br /> Boulder Creek arises 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 /> 6 <br />