Laserfiche WebLink
leaving a basin, as a transbasin or trans - mountain diversion , is 100% <br />consumptive to the exporting basin. Colorado's Front Range relies on a <br />significant amount of trans - mountain water from the Western Slope. "Imported" <br />water may be used and re -used to extinction in its new location, provided it is in <br />the receiving basin. The recipient does not have to maintain historic return flows <br />and the imported water is not subject to call of a compact in the receiving basin. <br />"Reserved water rights" are federal water rights, dating from the date of a specific <br />reservation of federal land. A Wild and Scenic River ( "WSR ") designation usually <br />comes with a reserved water right, to be held by the federal government. The two <br />Ute Tribes have historic reserved rights dating from the formation of their <br />reservations. <br />The question of a U.S. Forest Service ( "USFS ") federal reserved water rights has <br />been controversial. For the USFS, the date of a reserved water right is the date a <br />National Forest was established. In Southwest Colorado, USFS reserved rights <br />are still under litigation. Hermosa Creek and most of the streams in the San Juan <br />National Forest are involved in the reserved water rights litigation. Quantification <br />of these claims is just one of the unresolved issues in the litigation. <br />In answer to another question, Bruce responded that municipalities and certain <br />other water providers have the right of eminent domain to condemn water <br />supplies, but these are rarely exercised. <br />One recent issue is whether the production of water produced in conjunction with <br />drilling for coalbed methane is a beneficial use of water that requires a water well <br />permit. The District 7 Water Court has found that this was the case. That decision <br />was appealed to the Colorado supreme court. Historically the State administered <br />the produced water as a byproduct in the coalbed- methane extraction process, <br />which was not considered a beneficial use and, therefore, was , under the <br />jurisdiction of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. If produced <br />water had been being used beneficially it would have come under the jurisdiction <br />of the State Engineer. <br />When a water -user has a ditch or other water facility on National Forest land, the <br />user needs an easement under the 1986 Ditch Bill, an amendment to the Federal <br />Land Policy and Management Act ( "FLPMA "), or a special -use permit from the <br />USFS. The USFS may require the user to bypass a portion of his water right as a <br />condition of the permit or the Ditch Bill easement. This is a very contentious <br />issue. There is disagreement on the USFS authority to impose a bypass -flow <br />requirement. This is not a major issue on Hermosa Creek since there are few, if <br />any, diversions of water that originate or cross federal lands. <br />Discussion of map: Because time was running out, the group skipped the <br />scheduled review of the Hermosa Creek Initial Information Sheet and moved to <br />discussion of the maps of the Hermosa Creek Watershed. Scott Brinton, Division <br />of Water Resources, had prepared new maps adding some areas outside the <br />I1 <br />