Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />4. Forest Service Reserved Rights Cases, Case Nos. 81-CW-220 et al., 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 />Discussion: The Forest Service, State, and other objectors have been engaged in formal <br />supervised settlement discussions since early 2000. The parties remain very far apart on how <br />much water is needed for Forest purposes, and how to preserve water availability for future <br />development. <br /> <br />Ken Salazar, Greg Walcher, Rod Kuharich, Dan McAuliffe, Felicity Hannay, and <br />Wendy Weiss met with Jim DuBois and representatives ofthe Forest Service on October 5 <br />at their request to discuss the future of the Division 2 case. In brief, the FS representatives <br />announced their intention to withdraw the reserved right claims in Division 2 and "rely on <br />the Forest Plan" to provide the flows they believe are needed to fulfill national forest <br />purposes. We subsequently arranged a meeting with representatives of the Division 2 <br />objectors to the FS reserved rights claims on October 26 to brief them and to discuss next <br />steps. The consensus is that we should ask the court to dismiss the claims with prejudice <br />(i.e., they could not be refiled). In consultation with a group of objector representatives, <br />Wendy Weiss has prepared and circulated a draft list of conditions the objectors would <br />require in order to agree to a stipulated dismissal. <br /> <br />5; Forest Service Reserved Rights Cases, Case Nos. W-1146-73 et al., Water Division 7. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Discussion: Teclmical representatives of the Forest Service, the State, and the Southwestern <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. Settlement <br />discussions have been on hold pending completion of the teclmical work. <br /> <br />The Division 7 water users who've been negotiating with the Forest Service are <br />interested in continuing these negotiations despite the Forest Service's intent to dismiss its <br />reserved rights claims in Division 2. The Division 7 water users don't know if they'll <br />ultimately be able to settle, since they've left the most difficult streams for last, but they are <br />willing to persevere since their primary goal is to achieve some certaiuty about future uses <br />aud permits. They are hopiug to schedule a negotiating meeting (as opposed to a technical <br />group meeting) in mid-January. <br /> <br />6. Kansas v. Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 105, Original. <br /> <br />Issue: What is the proper remedy for Colorado's past violation of the Arkansas River <br />Compact? <br /> <br />Discussion: The Supreme Court issued its decision on quantification of damages on June 11, <br />2001. Although the Court ruled in Colorado's favor on only one argument, it was a big one: the <br />