Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br />with the promise of more public involvement later, which never materialized. The magnitude of <br />the flows claimed in the quantification that was filed exceed the power plant capacity at Crystal . <br />Reservojr and raise concerns about flooding and the effect on the yield ofthe Aspinall Unit, as <br />well as about whether those flows are justified under the purposes ofthe Monument (now Park). <br />We flied a statement of opposition on behalf of the! Board, State Engineer, and Division of <br />Wildlife. The final counl on SOPs flied is over 380. We've spoken to Dave Gehlert, connsel <br />for the Park Service, on filing a joint motion 10 verify the venue, but he has to clear it <br />through D.C., so nothing has happened on that score yet, Meanwhile, some of the technical <br />and polley folks fOl: the Park Service and lhe opposers, including Kent Holsinger and <br />Randy Seaholm, have met without attorneys prestint to discuss the issues. <br />! <br />2. Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, (i;.A. No. 96-WY-2686-WD. <br /> <br />Issue: Did the U.S. Forest Service act arbitraPly and capriciously when it signed the <br />Joint Operations Plan for Longdraw Reservoir witho.,lt requiring by-pass flows? <br /> <br />Decision: This case has been on hold since 1996. In October 2000 the federal magistrate <br />ruled in favor of the State's motion to intervene. Briefing will begin in March 2001 and continue <br />through July 200 \. . <br /> <br />Discussion: In the early 1990s, several reservoirs ~n the Roosevelt National Forest were up for <br />renewal oftheir special use permits from the Forest Service. A Joint Operations Plan ("JOP") <br />among the owners of some of the reservoirs and the Forest Service was agreed to after <br />substantial modeling showed that the JOP was the most feasible plan to preserve the rights of the <br />water owners as well as improve the overall fish habitat. After the agreement was signed in <br />1994, Trout Unlimited sued. The most important ofits 13 claims is that the Forest Service was . <br />required by law to require a bypass flow to maintain;instream flows below Longdraw Reservoir' <br />(owned by Water Supply & Storage). Thus, the two imain issues are whether the Forest Service <br />has the authority to require by-pass flows when rene~ing reservoir permits in the national <br />forests, and if so, whether the Forest Service halt theiobligation to require a by-pass flow in this <br />case. The case was originally lodged in federal court in Washington D.C:, but has been moved <br />to Colorado for further proceedings. The CWC13 and SEO strongly supported the 10P and will <br />explore options for joint defenses with other defendlplts. The first round of briefs was filed on <br />March 15th. The CWCB, SEO, City of Greeley and Water Supply & Storage Co. filed a brief <br />arguing that the Forest Service has no authority to i~pose bypass flows. We also coordinated <br />the filing of an amicus brief from the states of AlasJ<a, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, <br />and Wyoming on the same issue. Reply briefs Wer~ flied on May 15. The final round of briefs <br />is due on June 15. . <br /> <br />3. Nebraska v. Wyomina, United States Supreme Court, No. 108, Orildnal. <br /> <br />i <br />Issue: Has well pumping in Wyoming viol*ed the existing Supreme Court decree that <br />apportions the North Platte River among Colorado, !Nyoming, and Nebraska? Should the decree <br />be modified to add new injunctions against Wyomit\g? <br /> <br />Decision: The states have reached a final settlement, signed by the governors. The <br />settlement includes creating a North Platte Decree Committee with members from Wyoming, <br />Nebraska, Colorado, and Reclamation to improve communication and monitor compliance with . <br /> <br />-c- <br />