Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />BE <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />the decree. The states presented the proposed decree to the Special Master on March 19'h. <br />There was a status conference in Las Vegas on April 12th and 13th, at which the Whooping <br />Crane Trust expressed some minor concerns abont the settlement. The Special Master <br />seemed satisfied with the parties' responses lInd will issue a draft report this spring or early <br />snmmer, in which we think he will recommend approval of the settlement as signed, but <br />will create a record on some of the representations that tbe parties made about their intent. <br />We'll have yet another status conference on July 16th to comment on tbe draft report. Tbe <br />Master will then issue a final report, which will hopefully lead to Supreme Court approval <br />in the October 2001 term. <br /> <br />Discussion; Although there are no claims against Colorado, as a party to the existing <br />decree we are a party to this case. We have participated on a limited basis because Nebraska has <br />raised issues involving endangered species habitat that could affect future proceedings involving <br />the South Platte and North Platte Rivers as well as the proposed Platte River recovery program. <br />We are also concemed by a downstream state's effort to modify an equitable apportionment to <br />take water away from an upstream state. If the case hadn't settled, trial was expected to take well <br />over a year. <br /> <br />4. Forest Service applications for appropriative riflbts for sprinfls, 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 wcre filed in December 1999. Both the Board and <br />the State Engineer filed statements of opposition. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Discussion: Appropriative filings for springs for livestock and wildlife. watering have been <br />approved in many instances. These particular filings include some uses that raise legal issues, <br />such as the claim for fish and wetlands irrigation. Board and SEO staff, the Attorney General's <br />office, and the Forest Service have met once to explore settlement. There was a staff field trip to <br />check the factual basis for the filings, and some limiting language has been drafted to address <br />some of the legal issues. The Forest Service has characterized these filings as trying to work <br />within the state water rights system, rather than using its controversial administrative <br />mechanisms. After the field trip, however, it appears that most ofthese claims are the equivalent <br />of in stream flows or minimum lake levels. We met with the Forest Service to discuss use ofthe <br />Board's program to protect these areas. The Forest Service's initial reaction was that any <br />solution that did not give it a property interest and that was not "programmatic" - i.e., a solution <br />for all potential problems on the forests - was not satisfactory. We nevertheless agreed to <br />continue talking, as neither side saw any need to push litigation forward at this time. <br /> <br />S. Forest Service Reserved Riflhts Cases, Case Nos. 81-CW-220 et aI., Water Division 2. <br /> <br />Issue: [s the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br />