Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J ~ <br />OJ <br /> <br />.1 <br /> <br />.) <br /> <br />.l <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />- 3- <br /> <br />Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Revised Land and Resource <br />Management Plan (Attachment G), While Under Secretary Tenny affirmed all of the Chief ofthe <br />Forest Service's decisions, the Water Issue was affirmed with clarifications and instructions, Even <br />though these "clarifications and instructions" are addressing a decision on a single forest, they may <br />provide significant insight into current Forest Service policies regarding water resource issues on <br />National Forest System lands. The four basic cornerstones Tenny refers to on page 4 are significant <br />in recognizing states' rights and authorities under federal law, His fourth "cornerstone" states, <br />"water uses on National Forest System lands should be managed through cooperation with states, <br />other federal agencies, Tribal governments, holders of valid water rights and the interested public, <br />rather than through unilateral regulatory action by the Forest Service (emphasis provided)," Tenny <br />goes on to state in a later section, "Recognition of and respect for these rights (water rights granted <br />by the states) is a fundamental tenet of responsible federal land management and is essential to <br />maintaining order and predictability among water uses and water users," Hopefully, these policies <br />of recognition and cooperation can and will be applied across all National Forest System lands in <br />working collaboratively with the state and water users, <br /> <br />Comparisons with Other Rel!ions <br /> <br />A question came up as to how The Rocky Mountain Region, and specifically Colorado, compared to <br />the overall number of Ditch Bill applications submitted and the number of applications processed in <br />other Regions, Here is what we were able to determine with the assistance of the Forest Service, It <br />should be noted that these figures are very approximate in nature and that a direct comparison is not <br />valid due to some Application numbers already representing qualified applications and others <br />representing gross Application numbers, One can get a general sense as to the over all comparison, <br />i,e" the number of Ditch Bill applications in Colorado are virtually equivalent to the total number of <br />applications in all the other Regions/states combined, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rel!ion 1- (Montana, Idaho) <br />426 Applications /150 Processed <br />A . ' <br /> <br />Rel!ion 2 - Rocky Mountail ~~gion - (Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota) <br />1200 Qualified Applications (most occurring in Colorado) /300 Issued <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rel!ion 3 - (Arizona, New Mexico) <br />200 Applications / 65+ Issued / 15 Denied <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rel!ion 4 - (Utah, Nevada) <br />485 Applications / 225 Processed <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />This Memo has attempted to bring all Board Members up-to-date as to the Board's recent activity <br />relative to the Ditch Bill issue. The attachments to this memo frame the issue and provide many of <br />the foundation documents, Hopefully, this information will provide a ready reference for Board <br />Members as discussion of this issue evolves in the future, Future board memos may reference these <br />documents rather than attaching actual copies. <br /> <br />Flood Protection . Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and lake Protection <br />Wa.ter Supply Protection . Cons~rvation Planning <br />