My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01872
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01872
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:04:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/27/1999
Description
Colorado River Basin Issues - Interior Department's Indian Water Rights Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />DRAFT -- August 11, 1999 <br /> <br />such as construction. FWS consults with the agencies in the order that agencies come to them <br />with proposals. <br /> <br />In this manner, FWS establishes an environmental baseline of impacts to listed species based <br />on the proposals they have consulted on and existing projects. In practice, therefore, existing <br />water development projects and future projects which have been subject to consultation <br />become part of the environmental baseline which FWS uses, regardless of the project's water <br />rights priority. The Tribes noted that courts have held that Federal water projects are required <br />to be operated consistent with vested, fairly implied senior Indian water rights. Kittitas <br />Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, 763 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir.), cert. <br />denied, 474 U.S. 1032 (1985), and Joint Board of Control of Flathead, Mission and Jacko <br />Irrigation Districts, 832 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1987). They observed that failing to consider the <br />future exercise of such unquantified water rights may further skew the long-term effects of a <br />proposed action on listed species. <br /> <br />FWS recommends operating criteria or mitigation measures on those projects through <br />"reasonable and prudent alternatives" or "conservation recommendations." The tribes contend <br />that, by sequentially including water development projects in its environmental baseline, FWS <br />has in essence altered the historic prior appropriation system. Attorneys for the Ute Indian <br />Tribe and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe posited that the question to be addressed by FWS in the <br />Section 7 consultations on their respective tribal water development projects "will not be <br />whether junior water uses displaced by the Tribe's exercise of its reserved water rights <br />infringe on flows necessary for endangered species and therefore jeopardize the .fish." Rather, <br />the question will be whether the Tribe's new project causes jeopardy despite the fact that the <br />Tribe holds the senior right to use water for its project. <br /> <br />Tribes in the Upper Colorado River Basin uniformly objected to the development by FWS of <br />environmental baselines which include information provided by states on water rights without <br /> <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.