Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br />l <br />. <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />proceedings involving the South Platte and North Platte Rivers as well as the proposed <br />Platte River recovery program. We are also concerned by a downstream state's effort to e <br />modify an equitable apportionment to take water away from an upstream state. If the case <br />hadn't settled, trial was expected to take well over a year. <br /> <br />2. Reserved Ri~hts Claims for the West Side of Rocky Mountain National Park; Civil <br />Action No. 1769, Water Division 5. <br /> <br />Issue: Should the United States be decreed reserved rights for instream flows and <br />limited consumptive uses for streams on the west side of Rocky Mountain National Park? <br /> <br />Decision: In the previous United States v. Denver case, the Water Court and Colorado <br />. Supreme Court ruled that the Park was entitled to reserved rights for broad purposes, <br />including instream flows. The case was then remanded for quantification of those rights. <br />The United States has proposed a consent decree, quantifying the instream flow rights as <br />all unappropriated water, but also incorporating no-precedent language and protective <br />stipulations for those few entities that divert water near or within the Park. The Board <br />considered the decree earlier, but held off approval until other water users had negotiated <br />protective stipulations. It is now time to consider the final version of the consent decree. <br /> <br />Discussion: Rocky Mountain National Park sits at the top of the watershed, so that <br />impacts from reserved rights to instream flows within the park are not likely. The water <br />judge for Division 1 awarded reserved rights for instream flows for all unappropriated <br />water on the east side of the park. Because of the decision on the east side of the park, and <br />the Colorado Supreme Court's previous decision regarding the west side, there is not much <br />room to fight over the west side. The Board may wish to discuss the pros and cons of <br />settlement in executive session. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />3. Forest Service applications for appropriative ri~hts for sprin~s, Case Nos. 99CW267 <br />and 268, Water Division 4. <br /> <br />Issue: Whether the Forest Service may obtain appropriative decrees for springs for <br />livestock and wildlife watering, natural irrigation of wetlands, and fish. <br /> <br />Decision: None as yet. The applications were filed in December, 1999. Both the Board <br />and the State Engineer filed statements of opposition. <br /> <br />Discussion: Appropriative filings for springs for livestock and wildlife watering have <br />been approved in many instances. These particular filings include some uses that raise <br />legal issues, such as the claim for fish and wetlands irrigation. Board and SEO staff, my <br />office, and the Forest Service have met once to explore settlement. There will be a field trip <br />to check the factual basis for the filings, and drafting of some limiting language to address <br />some of the legal issues. The Forest Service characterized these filings as trying to work <br />within the state water rights system, rather than using its controversial administrative <br /> <br />e <br />