Laserfiche WebLink
<br />',9( <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />with a letter from Ken Salazar suggesting a meeting and warning that time might be running out. <br />The Forest Service's response was very discouraging. Rather than stop negotiating, the objectors . <br />proposed a technical committee to clarifY how much water each side is offering, on what basis. <br />since we seem to disagree on the impacts of each other's proposals. The main negotiations are <br />on hold pending the outcome of that process. Several technical meetings have been held. but <br />more work remains to be done. . <br /> <br />Discussion: Applications for instream flow Water pghts in Water Divisions 2 and 7 have been <br />pending since the '70s. The claims are for "channel maintenance flows" allegedly needed to <br />secure favorable 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 in the national forests to bypass water as <br />a condition of permit renewals. The resulting contrQversy led water users, the Forest Service, <br />and the State to begin negotiating a compromise that would provide protection and certainty for <br />existing facilities in exchange for the recognition ana protection of specified flows within the <br />forests. The parties stipulated to a decree in Water Division 3, signed by the Water Judge on <br />March 30, 2000. This settlement approach works hi 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 negotiations in Divisions 2 and 7. . <br /> <br />6. Forest Service Reserved Rildtts Cases, ClIse Nos. W.1l46.73 et al., Water Division 7. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decision: Technical representatives of the For~st Service, the State. and the Southwestern <br />Water Conservation District continue to work On as~essing 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 />negotiation team met on February 22, June 5, and S;eptember 6 to assess progress so far. The <br />technical committee is close to completing its initia). review of the forest streams, but then plans <br />to revisit areas where it was unable to reach a consensus. We put off the negotiating meeting <br />scheduled for the end of November to allow the technical committee more time to complete its <br />recommendation. We have begun drafting language to describe some of the settlement concepts <br />discussed by the technical committee. After the teqhnical committee completes its work. <br />however. the main negotiating committee will hav~ to review each recommendation. and <br />probably meet with all individual water users, before a complete se~ement proposal can be put <br />together. Trout Unlimited has been allowed to intervene, and now has requested participation in <br />the seltlemel\t discussions. Its interest in settlement - as opposed to litigating to make the Forest <br />Service demand more water - is not clear, and the objectors have refused to include 111 in the <br />negotiations. The technical committee still has work to complete and we propose to put off the <br />next negotiating meeting until May. <br /> <br />. <br />