Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />states and the United States submitted comments, and what should be the final status <br />conference took place in Denver on July 16, 2001. The Master will now issue a final report, <br />which will hopefully lead to Supreme Court approval ofthe amended decree and <br />settlement in the October 2001 term. <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 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 />Decision: After several years of negotiations, including several reversals of position from <br />the Forest Service, the parties began a formal settlement process supervised by ex-water judge <br />John Tracey early in 2000. In August the objectors sent a 60-page settlement proposal to the <br />Forest Service. The Forest Service's response was very discouraging. Rather than stop <br />negotiating, the objectors proposed a technical cOll)lTIitteeto clarifY how much water each side is <br />offering, on what basis, since we seem to disagree on the impacts of each other's proposals. The <br />main negotiations have been on hold pending the outcome of that process. The technical <br />committee has now completed its report and tlj.e report has been distributed to the attorneys and <br />Judge Tracey. The report clarifies areas of agreement and disagreement and, not surprisingly, <br />shows us to be far apart on how much water is needed for both fish habitat and channel <br />maintenance and on how to determine water availability for future development. The objectors <br />met to discuss the report and agreed that we should approach Justice about scheduling at <br />least one more meeting after more Administration officials are in place. However, so far <br />the U.S. Department of Justice attorney handling the case has not returned Wendy Weiss' <br />calls. <br /> <br />Discussion: Applications for instream flow water rights 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 1. 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 controversy 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 and 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 in the Rio Grande basin, where new water <br />