Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1978 WATER COURT RULING Ac'lD DECREED WATER RIGHT FORBLCA <br /> <br />L The 1978 Water Coun ruling awarded NPS a 1933 water right for many purposes. Why is the NPS <br />limiting its approach and water right quantification to only a few of these purposes? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2. NPS needs to quantify its right to the maximum extent allowable by law and consistent with the <br />original decree, Negotiations before the water coun or annually with other federal bureaus will only <br />serve to weaken NPS' current position, <br /> <br />3, Colorado Supreme Coun precedent requires that federal reserved rights be quantified as the minimum <br />amount of water necessary to prevent defeat of the primary purposes for which a reservation was <br />established A claim for "all the remaining unappropriated flow" does not s..-em reasonable or <br />justified, nor is it consistent with the directions for quantification outlined in the water court decree, <br /> <br />4. The NPS has not clearly anicuJated the purposes for which specific flows are required, nor have they <br />adequately demonstrated that there have been or will be significant effects from diminished flows. <br /> <br />5. The Monument's reserved rights must not impair the authorized purposes of the Aspinall UniL <br /> <br />6. What diligence has been conducted by the NPS to keep its conditional decree alive since 1982? <br /> <br />7. The Monument was established to preserve resources related to the majestic views from the canyon <br />rim, not specific in<hannel, streambed characteristics. A claim for "all the remaining <br />unappropriated flow" is not consistent with purposes as defined in the original proclamation. <br /> <br />8. The 1978 decree requires that the United States present its water right claim in common language <br />understandable to laymen. In simple and understandable terms, specifically define the NPS' reserved <br />water right quantification, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />SUBORDINATION TO NOVEMBER 13, 1957 <br /> <br />L NPS' needs can be met without sacrificing NPS priority, do not subordinate the 1933 right! <br /> <br />2. What is the magnitude associated with subordinated rights and who/what uses are included? What <br />evidence does the NPS have to suppon the assenion that the subordination of these rights will leave <br />enough water in the river to protect Black Canyon resources? <br /> <br />3. Proposed subordination takes water away from the endangered fish and increases the likelihood of <br />increased ~ency of 300 cfs flows. <br /> <br />4. What is the cost to taxpayers associated \vith lengthy negotiations and possible legal challenges? <br /> <br />5. How will future development of conditional water rights and new water development proposals be <br />addressed? How much additional water consumption can occur upstream of the Monument without <br />injury to Monument purposes? <br /> <br />6, What alternatives exist and have been considered, rather than subordinating the 1933 right? <br /> <br />7, Why not simply quantify the NPS right as "all unappropriated flows as of 11113/57' and avoid the <br />administr.tive difficulties of subordinating to everyone between 312133 and 1I/13/57? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />3 <br />