BOARD01512 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.... .. ,~ FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P. C. . GtORO!!: C. KEELY PtTEA F: BREITEI'lSTE'''' C......RLTO,., H. CARPENTER PATRICK Y. KENNEY HOWARD I"IOLME JAMES I.. STONE !ooIICHAEL M. MCKINSTRY ..lAC ....SPERL.ING ROBERT I.- L.OEB, JR. II.EVlN e. PRATT DANIEL. R. FROST STII!:F"I-lEN W. SEIF"e:RT MARY JO GR05S ROBERT .... HOLM ES JOI-lN J. SILVI!:R THOMAS Fl KEARNS ROCCO A.DODSON MAFlY ,. MOSI!:R ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT u.w ONE UNITED eANK CENTER SUITE 2400 1700 LINCOLN STREET CI-lFlISTINE K. TRUITT BRENT T. JOHNSON PATRIC'A O. MCGRAW CRAIG A. UM9AUGH STEPHEN .... ~EONHAROT CA.ROLINE C. F"ULLER LINO.. G. MOGR!!:N JOHN M. T"NNER T""'01"HY L. WILKINSON NEIL. 1; DUGGAN DENVe:R. COLORADO 80203-452:04 TELECOPtER (303) 1!I30-1033 01'" COUNSEL ROYAL. C. RUBRIGHT """'RY E. BRICI'\.NER VIRGIN'A A.. HOUSUM TEL.EPHONE (303) 830-2"00 August 25, 1988 Honorable Duane Woodard Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street Third Floor Denver, CO 80203 Re: National Forest Instream Flow Claims Dear Duane: . On behalf of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, we write to support your earnest consideration of the approaches to this litigation suggested by the Colorado Water Conservation Board resolution and by John Carlson in his letter to you of August 24, 1988. While U.S. v. Jesse, 744 P.2d 491 (Colo. 1987), was decided unanimously, we think it was a close decision. We think the Court nearly decided the matter conclusively in our direction in U. S. v. Denver, 656 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1982) (Denver I), and that Jesse was nowhere near a total loss. If we can convince a key justice or two on this third case, perhaps Justice Erickson again, we might largely return the Court to the Denver I posi- tion. 503: The central language in U. S. v. Jesse is this, from page If. after a full consideration of the leqislative historv and factual circumstances, the water court determines that the purpose of the Organic Act will be entirely defeated unless the United States is allowed to maintain minimum instream flows over the forest lands, the United States should be granted such reserved water rights under the Organic Act. Other- wise. the claims should be denied. Because the reserved rights doctrine is implied, rather than expressed, and because of the history of congressional intent relating to federal-state jurisdiction of water allocation, reservations must be strictlv limited to the minimum amount of water needed to ensure that the .