My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPP00050
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPP00050
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 9:26:12 PM
Creation date
10/1/2006 2:01:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8064
Description
Indian Water Rights
State
CO
Date
8/1/1985
Author
Frank E Maynes
Title
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights-Final Settlement Agreement-December 10 1986-The Animas La Plata Related Reserved Indian Water Rights Concerns
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />annual payroll of $340,000. As they pumped groundwater for their ranch, <br /> <br />2t miles from Devil's Hole, they lowered the water level in the Devil's Hole <br /> <br />pool where the pupfish lived. A fter five years of I itigation in federal <br /> <br />district and appellate courts, the matter was settled. The Supreme Court <br /> <br />decided in favor of the pupfish, holding "that when the Federal Govern- <br /> <br />ment withdraws its land from the public domain and reserves it for a <br /> <br />federal purpose, the Government, by implication, reserves appurtenant <br /> <br />water then unappropriated to the extent needed to accomplish the purpose <br /> <br />of the reservation." This case, incidentally, was the first Supreme Court <br /> <br />application of this doctrine to groundwater. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court again upheld the doctrine of reserved water <br /> <br />rights in a 1978 case entitled United States v. New Mexico, but with a <br /> <br />definitely refined and severely limited interpretation. The United States <br /> <br /> <br />claimed reserved water rights for use in the Gila National Forest, to <br /> <br />include such purposes as recreation,' aesthetics, wildlife preservation, and <br /> <br />cattle grazing. The Gila National Forest had been set aside as a national <br /> <br />forest in 1899, pursuant to the Creative Act of March 3, 1891, and the <br /> <br />Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897. This latter Act had specif- <br />ically provided the following: <br /> <br />No national forest shall be established. except to <br />improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, <br />or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of <br />water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of <br />timber for use. <br /> <br />The United States relied, in its argument, on the provisions of the Nation-' <br /> <br />al Park Servi,ce Act of 1916, which in its stated purpose contained such <br /> <br />language as "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects <br /> <br />and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of same. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />The Supreme Court, however. limited the quantity of water for the Gila <br /> <br />0164 <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />j <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.