Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />South Platte and North Platte Rivers as well as the proposed Platte River recovery pmgram. We <br />are also concerned by a downstream state's effort to modifY an equitable apportionment tO'take <br />water away from an upstream state. If the case hadn't settled, trial was expected to take well 'Over <br />a year. <br /> <br />2. Reserved Ri2hts Claims for the W1!St Side of Rockv Mountain National Park: Civil <br />Action No. 1769. Water Division 5. <br /> <br />Issue: Should the United States be decreed reselVed rights for instream flows and limited <br />consumptive uses for streams on the west side of Rocky Mountain National Park? <br /> <br />Decision: In the previous United States v. Denver case, ihe Water Court and Colorado <br />Supreme Court ruled that the Park was entitled to reserved rights for broad purposes, including <br />instream flows. The case was then remanded for quantification of those rights. The United <br />States has proposed a consent decree; quantifYing tbe instream flow rights as all unappropriated <br />water, but al~ incorporating no-precedent language and protective stipulations for those few <br />entities that divert water near or within the Park. The Board considered the decree earlier, but <br />held off approval until other water users had negotiated protective stipulations, The Attorney <br />General'~ OtT'Ke sent out a letter to all objectors to ensure that their water rights had been <br />protected, and received one response from the Middle Park Conservancy District. <br />Following resolutiou of Middle Park's concerns, we are prepared to sign ofT on the consent <br />decree. <br /> <br />Discussion: Rocky Mountain National Park sits at the top of the watershed, so that impacts <br />from reselVed rights to instream flows within the park are not likely. The water judge for <br />Division 1 awarded reselVed rights for instream flows for all unappropriated water on the east <br />side of the.park. Because of the decision on the east side of the park, and the Colorado Supreme <br />Court's previous decision reganling the west side, there is not much room to fight over the west <br />side. <br /> <br />3. Forest Service aDDlications for aDnronriative ri2hts for liunnl!s. Case Nos. 99CW267 <br />and 268r Water Division 4. <br /> <br />Issue: Whether the Forest Service may obtain appropriative decrees for springs for <br />livestock anll wildlife watering, natural irrigation of wetlands, and fish. <br /> <br />Decision: None as yet. The applications were filed in December 1999, Both the Board and <br />the State Enllineer filed statements of opposition. <br /> <br />Discussion: Appropriative filings for springs for livestock and wildlife watering have been <br />approved in many instances, These particular filings incl~ some uses that raise legal issues, <br />such as the Qlaim for fish and wetlands irrigation. Board and SED staff, the Attorney General's <br />office; and1heForest SelVice have met once to explore settlement. There was a stafT field trip to <br />check the facttlal basis for the filings, and some limitiflg language bas been drafted to address <br />some of the legal issues, The Forest SelVice has characterized these filings as trying to work <br />