My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00355
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00355
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:49:16 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:36:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/24/2003
Description
Forest Service Bypass Flows in Special Use Permits
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 />MAR-04-2003 TUE 09:53 AM TROUT WITWER & FREEMAN <br /> <br />FAX NO, 3038324465 <br /> <br />PART I <br />J:NTRODUCTJON <br /> <br />The Task Force was created as the result of a. cOlmoversy in Colorado regarding an <br />attempt by the Forest Service to lOse federal permitting authority to require that the owners of <br />existing water supply facilities located on)fational Forestlands relinquish a part of the water <br />supply that would otherwise be provided from these facilities. While this controversy originated <br />in.Colorado, information provided to the T~sk Force revealed that related conflicts with the <br />torest Service exist in other States in the West, including Montana, Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada. <br />These conflicts have in common the attempllo use federal land use authority to reallocate water <br />and water rights owned by non.federal entj~es 10 National Forest purposes. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In Colorado, the Forest Service altqmpted to i.ll1pose a "bypaas flow" requirement that <br />would have taken approximately 501'10 of the d~.year witer supply provided ITom a <br />municipal water storage facility. I Ain agricultural water lOser was threatened with a bypass <br />flow demand that would have re!Nl~ed in an 80% loss of the dl)'-yeat water supply from a <br />key reservoir, with a direct economic 10as ofbefWeen 5 and 17 million dollars.' In a similar <br />e1Cample in Idaho, a federal pmninqe on National Forest lands was told thaI he would <br />have to bypass water to protect aqliatic species; or obtaln an alternate source of water at a <br />cost ofSI20,OOO.~ Ifbypass flow (equiremenu were 10 be implemented in Montana, one' <br />ditch company estimates that it wOllld lose approldmately 50% of its water supply.' See <br />Part III. <br /> <br />. The Governor of the State orMontlllla expressed concern with the attempted use of <br />bypass flow authority to augment f~eral witer rights: "One of the purposes of a <br />comprehensive adjudication is certainty for water users. Monlana would like to ensure <br />that, ifthe Forest Service's water ri$hts are quantified through agreement, the Forest <br />Service will not be able to augment ,its water right by requiring additional bypass !lows as <br />a condition on a special use permit.~" The Anomey General oflhe Slate of Colorado has <br />expressed a similar concern: "FederiU bypass flow policy becomes, then, a reallocation of <br />water righlS in a mlUlller conttary tQ state law. : Thus, Ihe imposition offederal bypass <br />flows contravenes both a primary p\lrpose oftbe national forests and the intent of the <br />, <br /> <br />1 C.cha J. Foudr. River c... SrIllIy, PUI VIII. <br /> <br />~ W, Fischer lener \0 Task FOfOO, July 31. 1997~'Comm<l1lS ~d Testimony o(City o(Thomton. July 17, 1997. <br />l An.ehme'llSIOOovemorBanl.nel'loTukFo(oo.F.t>ruary 14, \997. <br />, , <br /> <br />· T, BIlIl1~1lI'8erlenerloTlISkFClI'ce.Aug1JSlS. 1997. <br />I <br />· G<>vemor R.eicolleller to TlISk Force. July 24, 1997. <br /> <br />I. 1 <br /> <br />.I <br /> <br />p, 08 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.