Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />within the stlrte water rights system, rather than using its controversial administrative <br />mechanisms, The BotlTd 1fUl)I wish tlJ'diseuss the fintlinM at the field trip and the pros and <br />cons of settlement in executive session. <br /> <br />4. Farest Service Reserved Ril!:hts Cases. Case NO's. 8I-CW-220 et al.. Water Divisian 2. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U. S. Forest Service entitlro to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decisian: After several years of negotiations, including several reversals of position from <br />~Forest Service, the parties have begun a formal settlement process supervised by ex-water <br />judge John Tracey, The State <md all interested objectors met on March lO to agree on a written <br />outline of their position to submit to Judge Tracey by March 24. As before, the goals remain <br />protecting all ~sting water rights from both reserved rights claims and later Forest Service <br />demands for water through administrative means, and trying to protect some water for needed <br />future devel()pment on the forests. TheForest Service submitted a counterproposal on April 24, <br />and Judge Tracey held the first settlement meeting on May 4. The Forest Service- showed little <br />willingness to consider needs for future development in Water Division 2. Theobject1ml met <br />1m June 22, and another settlement meeting witlt the Forest Service and the object61'S was <br />held July 6. The Fllrest Service's position cantinues to' make settlement lIntikely. The next <br />settlement Ipeeting will be September 11. <br /> <br />. Discussian: Applications for instream flow water rights 1n Water Divisions 2 and 7 have been <br />pending since-the '70s. The claims are for "channel maintenance flows" allegedly needed to <br />secure favor,role conditions of water flow for downstream water users, After a lengthy and <br />expensive trial, the State and water users defeated the- United States' claims for channel <br />maintenance flows in Water Division I, Shortly afterward, the Forest Service responded by <br />seeking to require the owners of existing water facilities irtthe national forests to bypass water as <br />a condition qf permit renewals. The resulting controversy led water users, the Forest Service, <br />and the State to begin negotiating a compt'omisethat would provide protection and certainty for <br />existing facilities in exchange for the recognition of protection of specified flows within the <br />forests. The parties stipulated to' a decree in Water Division 3, signed by the Water Judge <br />an March 30, 2000. This settlement approach works in the Rio Grande basin, where new water <br />development on or above the national forests is not anticipated, Future uses continue to be an <br />issue in negqtiations in Divisions 2 and 7. TheBQard may wish to discuss the'substance of the <br />settlement proposals and settlement discussions to date in more detail in executive session. <br /> <br />5. Farest Service Reserved Riehts Cases. Case NO's. W-1146-73 et al.. Water Divisian 7. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Decisian: Technical representatives of the Forest Service, the State, and the Southwest <br />Water Conservation District continue-to work on assessing streams in the forests to determine <br />both Forest Service and water user needs and to see if the two can be reconciled, The parties' <br />