BOARD02091

• Board Meeting Date: 3/16/1978
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

As Mr. Balcomb mentioned, the minimum streamflow case is fully briefed
in Water Division 5, concerning c'onstitutionali]:yof.',that 's.tatu.te., As soon
as'Judge Lohr has decided whether or ,not he is required to disqualify
himself because of this wife's membership in the League'of Women voters,
which has filed an amicus brief in support of the Board's postion, we
will either then proceed to have the judge rule on that issue at the
district court level ,or be into a'period of time where we'are trying-to I
identify a new judge to replace Judge Lohr. I don't wish to speculate
on what will happen on that. I would guess that by the next meeting-
we will be very close to a decisi~~ or ~ithin another court.

I am working on a committee of lawyers from various western states,
set up by the western states Water Council, 'dealing with proposed legis-
lation that can be submitted to the Congress to deal with the federal
reserved rights and the Indian reserved rights question. I personally
think that one of the only rational solutions to the entire problem is
for Congress to pass some legislation and at least give us:some direction.
I will, hopefully, have a draft of legislation that is in good enough
shape to distribute within the next couple of weeks. I would intend to
provide copies to the various members of the water board to see if they
have any comments or would like to provide direction on it. I will also
give a copy to'Mr. Sparks and maybe, we 'can distribute it to the board
members.

Concerning the United States' claim for water rights in colorado, Judge
Stewart has issued his ruling in the Divisions 4, 5, and 6 case, at least
with regard to the united States' .claim. In general, I think it is fair
to say:he supported the position taken by the Master Referee,.Sandy White.
The ruling was issued on the 6th of March.

-
In Division 1, the united States filed 385 cases for water rights. It
has created a great amount of consternation throughout the country. A
number of western senators and'administrative assistants have called our
office wanting to know what in the world is going: on. The primary point
of contention appears to be that in some of the cases the united States
claimed a priority date of 1803, which was the date of the Louisana
Purchase. (Laughter.) Well, I guess we'will hear some more about that.

I am in the process of seeking a paralegal who can take the time that I
don't have and who will go through these cases and sort them out and
categorize them so we don't spend time on the ones that are of little
significance. I will prepare a report for the Board on how those cases
break down and what'we are proposing to do.

Finally, to go on with the somewhat:noisy disucssion that Kenneth I
Balcomb and I started this morning, yesterday I received from the state
of New Mexico a request for the state'of Colorado to join with the
western states in an amicus brief supporting the position of the state
of New Mexico in the New'Mimbres case. '1 think I reported last time
that the New Mimbres case was a case arising in the state of'New Mexico
where the united States made various claims for water rights in the
Gila National Forest. A master was appointed. The master awarded water
rights to the federal government for minimum streamflows and for various
qther purposes. The state of New Mexico appealed the masters' findings

-38-'