My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01180
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01180
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:58:55 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:51:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/20/2000
Description
ISF Section - Regional Flow Discussion of Next Steps
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />< <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />Under current case law, are filings by an agency ofthe federal government for RISF <br />rights that are to be used within a federal land reserve permitted as long as the <br />federal agency files for such rights in accordance with Colorado 11lw? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />RESPONSE: This is hyperbole and fear mongering. <br /> <br />. EW Memo overstates the concern. EW memo states, "since recreation is often <br />cited as a use of federally reserved land, the recreational use of the waters of the <br />streams within the federal reserve would be a credible assertion and could form <br />the basis for appropriation of a RISF right." EW Memo at 5. This is an absurd <br />assertion. The author has skipped entirely the state legal requirements for creation <br />ofa RD right. RD rights under Colorado statutes and the Fort Collins case are <br />only acquired by control of the water claimed via a manmade "structure or <br />device." City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915,930 (Colo. <br />1992). Layer upon layer of federal land management and environmental statutes <br />and regulations direct the various federal land management agencies to preserve <br />the natural environment. Without having done an extended analysis of the federal <br />law involved, we doubt that federal law allows any federal land management <br />agency to install artificial structures and devices in the bed of a natural stream to <br />change and control the flow of that stream to the degree necessary to perfect a <br />water right under state law. Such actions would certainly be prohibited in <br />Wilderness Areas. Even if aUowed by federal law, such actions would probably <br />trigger NEP A, require environmental impact statements, and be cost prohibitive. e <br /> <br />. On the other hand, if federal agencies are allowed by federal law to finance and <br />build the necessary structures, i.e. make the required investment and do the <br />required work, then they probably could acquire the rights under state law. This is <br />not, however, a basis to change existing law on RD's. <br /> <br />Note the SEO's response to this qllestion: "Federal RISF water rights would be <br />administered in accordance with the decree, the priority system and available supplies." <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.