Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, , <br /> <br />Colorado Wate~ Conservation Board <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />and the federal government that would look to the Boar"d to quan- <br />tify, adjudicate, and protect instream flow water rights for <br />wilderness areas appears to be exactly the object sought' to be <br />attained by the General Assembly. <br /> <br />This ,conclusion is strengthened by the General Assembly's <br />explicit opposition to federal reserved water rights claims <br />because they threaten valuable property rights lawfully appropr~- <br />ated or acquired under Colorado's prior appropriation system. <br />,Section 37-60-121.1, C.R.S. (1990). Clearly t~ere is a strong <br />legislativa preference for integrating the federal government , <br />,in,t.o the state appropriation sys-tem by encouraging it to partici- <br />pate in the state instream flow program, rather than obtaining <br />reserved rights,under federal law. That is precisely what S. <br />1029 would accomplish. <br /> <br />Since the United States would not be 'providing water, a water <br />right, or an interest in water to the Board, a contract between <br />the Board and the Secretary of Agriculture would have 'to be'sup- <br />ported by some other adequate consideration. That consideration <br />could be, fOr example, a commitment by the federal agency to con- <br />duct'water resource studies or to install measuring devices to, <br />assist in protecting and enforcing the Board's rights. If such <br />consideration is provided, it is my opinion that the Board ):las <br />the legal authority to 'enter into an agreement with the Secretary <br />of Agr icul ture to protect and enforce the', Board's instream flow <br />rights. ' <br /> <br />AG File No. E9l07254.l24 <br />