Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />89 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />implement the principles. The settlement includes creating a North Platte Decree Committee <br />with members from Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, and Reclamation to improve communication <br />and monitor compliance with the decree. <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 concerned 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 rillhts for sprinlls, 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 ofwetIands, and fish. <br /> <br />Decision: None as yet. The applications were filed in December 1999. Both the Board and <br />the State Engineer 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 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 of these claims are the equivalent <br />of instream flows 01' minimum lake levels. We met with the Forest Service to discuss use of <br />the Board's program to protect these areas. The Forest Service's initial reaction was that <br />any solution tbat did not give it a property interest and that was not "programmatic" - i.e., <br />a solution for all potential problems on tbe forests - was not satisfactory. We nevertheless <br />lIgreed to continue talking, as neither side saw any need to push litigation forward at tbis <br />time. <br /> <br />5. Forest Service Reserved Rillhts Cases, Case Nos. 81-CW-220 et at, Water Division 2. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decision: After several years of negotiations, including several reversals of position from <br />the Forest Service. the parties began a fonnal settlement process supervised by ex-water judge <br />John Tracey early this year. In August the objectors sent a 60-page settlement proposal to the <br />Forest Service. The proposal was also forwarded to Lois Schiffer at the Department of Justice. <br />