Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"t <br /> <br />""" <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />mechanisms. The Board may wish to discuss tlte pros and cons of settlement in executive <br />session. <br /> <br />4. Forest Service Reserved Ril!;hts Case, Case No. 81-CW-183, Water Div. 3. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decision: The United States, the State of Colorado, and the three largest water user <br />organizations in Water Division 3 signed a stipulation agreeing to a proposed decree that will <br />award the Forest Service rights for instream flows with a 1999 priority. Judge Ogburn signed <br />the decree on March 30th. The decree will be subject to reopening if the Forest Service seeks to <br />impose bypass flows on existing water supply facilities located in the national forests. <br /> <br />Discussion: Applications for instream flow water rights in water divisions 2, 3, and 7 have <br />been pending since the '70s. The claims are for "channel maintenance flows" allegedly needed to <br />secure favorable conditions of water flow for downstream water users. After a lengthy and <br />expensive trial, the State and water users defeated the United States' claims for channel <br />maintenance flows in Water Division I. Shortly ,lfterward, the Forest Service responded by <br />seeking to require the owners of existing water facilities in the national forests to bypass water as <br />a condition of permit renewals. The resulting controversy led water users, the Forest Service, <br />and the State to begin negotiating a compromise that would provide protection and certainty for <br />existing facilities in exchange for the recognition of protection of specified flows within the <br />forests. This settlement works in the Rio Grande Basin, where new water development on or <br />above the national forests is not anticipated. Future uses will continue to be an issue in <br />negotiations in Divisions 2 and 7. <br /> <br />S. Forest Service Reserved Ril!;hts Cases, Case Nos. 81-CW-220 et aI., Water Division 2. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decision: After several years of negotiations, including several reversals of position from <br />the Forest Service, the parties have begun a formal settlement process supervised by ex-water <br /> <br />judge John Tracey. The State and all interested objectors met on March 10th to agree on a <br /> <br />written outline of their position to submit to Judge Tracey by March 24th. As before, the goals <br />remain protecting all existing water rights from both reserved rights claims and later Forest <br />Service demands for water through administrative means, and trying to protect some water for <br />needed future development on the forests. The Forest Service submitted a counterproposal <br />on April 24'h, and Judge Tracey held the first settlement meeting on May 4th. The Forest <br />Service showed little willingness to consider needs for future development in Water <br />Division 2. Further settlement meetings are set for June 22nd, with only the objectors; and <br />July 6th. with the Forest Service and the objectors. Judge Tracey has been helpful in <br />focusing the discussions and moving things more quickly. <br />