BOARD01456 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 well as about whether those flows are justified under the purposes of the Monument (now Park). We filed a statement of opposition on behalf of the Board, State Engineer, and Division of Wildlife. The final count on SOPs filed is over 380. Wendy Weiss has been working with the U.S. Department of Justice on a joint motion to confirm venue and has circulated a draft to about a dozen other objectors for comments. Once ~e file it, the next step will be setting the ground rules for negotiations. . 2. Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. No. 96-WY-2686-WD. Issue: Did the U.S. Forest Service act arbitrarily and capriciously when it signed the Joint Operations Plan for Longdraw Reservoir without requiring by-pass flows? Decision: This case has been on hold since 1996. In October 2000 the federal magistrate ruled in favor of the State's motion to intervene. Brief!ng will begin in March 2001 and continue through July 2001. Discussion: In the early 1990s, several reservoirs inithe Roosevelt National Forest were up for renewal of their special use permits from the Forest Service. A Joint Operations Plan ("JOP") among the owners of some of the reservoirs and the Forest Service was agreed to after substantial modeling showed that the JOP was the most feasible plan to preserve the rights of the water owners as well as improve the overall fish habit~t. After the agreement was signed in 1994, Trout Unlimited sued. The most important of its 13 claims is that the Forest Service was reqUired by law to require a bypass flow to maintain i~stream flows below Longdraw Reservoir (owned by Water Supply & Storage). Thus, the two main issues are whether the Forest Service has the authority to require by-pass flows when renewing reservoir permits in the national . forests, and if so, whether the Forest Service had the obligation to require a by-pass flow in this case. The case was originally lodged in federal court.in Washington D.C., but has been moved to Colorado for further proceedings. The CWCB and! SEO strongly supported the JOP andwill explore options for joint defenses with other defendro)ts. The first round of briefs was filed on March 15th. The CWCB, SEO, City of Greeley and Water Supply & Storage Co. filed a brief arguing that the Forest Service has no authority to impose bypass flows. We also coordinated the filing of an amicus brief from the states of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming on the same issue. The case is now fully briefed and we're waiting for the court to set it for argument or decide it on the briers. 3. Nebraska v. Wyoming, United States Suprem~ Court, No. 108, Original. Issue: Has well pumping in Wyoming viola~ed the existing Supreme Court decree that apportions the North Platte River among Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska? Should the decree be modified to add new injunctions against Wyoming? Decision: The states have reached a final settlement, signed by the governors. The settlement includes creating a North Platte Decree Committee with members from Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, and Reclamation to improve c~mmunication and monitor compliance with the decree. The states presented the proposed decree to the Special Master on March 19, 2001. The Master circulated a draft final report recommending approval of the settlement, the .