Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to the District of New Mexico, the state District Court, which reversed <br />the master and denied the united states' claim fOr water rights for some <br />of the forest purposes. The united states appealed that to the state <br />Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court. so we are now in the <br />United States Supreme Court. Cert has been granted. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Now, the federal government takes the position that fishery and recreation <br />uses on the National Forest were contemplated by the Congress when they <br />passed the enabling actions setting up the National Forest--in this case, <br />in 1897--and they are, therefore, Claiming an appropriation date of 1897. <br />The state of New Mexico, basically, has taken the position that they do <br />not have authority to obtain minimum streamflow rights. <br /> <br />Personally, I am sorry that the case is up in this forum, because I <br />think the water lawyers in Colorado have done an excellent job in develop- <br />ing the facts and the law for a sweeping decision on this issue in the <br />4, 5, and 6 case that Judge stewart just recently ruled on. Judge Stewart <br />and Sandy White granted a 1960 date for minimum streamflows, based upon <br />the passage of the Multiple Use Act. I think that is_a very reasonable <br />position. <br /> <br />I would report to the Board that that is the basic position taken by the <br />proposed amicus brief prepared by an attorney on the Western States Water <br />Council. I have only been able to scan the propOsed amicus brief. <br /> <br />I think that, generally, it would be appropriate for the Board to direct <br />our office to enter our name on the brief SO long as it doesn't take <br />the absolute position that there is no such thing as minimum streamflows. <br />That would seem to me--and I am certainly willing to abide by however <br />the Board wishes to go--to be somewhat counter to our present statutory <br />mandate. However, a position that says that the federal government may <br />obtain minimum streamflow claims utilizing a 1960 date, based upon the <br />Multiple Use Act, appears to me to be a reasonable one and one that <br />COlorado should support and one that appears to be taken by the western <br />states. <br /> <br />Maybe Ken Balcomb could elaborate a bit. He has had far more conversa- <br />tions with the attorneys in New Mexico than I have. And he may have <br />more comments about the case. But at the moment, it appears to me that <br />as a minimum the Board should authorize Mr. Sparks to review the brief <br />with me and proceed forward. <br /> <br /> That is all I have. <br />I MR. STAPLETON: Do you so move? <br />MR. ROBBINS: I so move. <br />MR. STAPLETON: Is -there a second? <br /> MR. FURNEAUX: Second. <br /> MR. STAPLETON: Any discussion? <br /> <br />-39- <br />