Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. JACKSON: Just a question. Dave, is the 1960 date--anybody else <br />has to go into court to get a date? <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: Yes. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Is this simply a compromise, or did they actually go into <br />court at that time? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: 'They didn't go into court at that time. You still have <br />the whole issue of prior dates. In New Mexico, it is not so much an <br />issue, because they have not adjudicated all the streams in the state. <br />They have a procedure that is different than Colorado's SO it is still <br />possible, as I understand it, to obtain a historic priority date on a <br />stream that has not been adjudicated. <br /> <br />In Colorado, no matter what happens in the New Mimbres case, we have the <br />fight with the federal government over whether or not they can ante-date <br />their dates and have them placed into the priority system, despite what <br />the 1969 Act says. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Did I misunderstand you then--that it is not so much an <br />argument about the minimum streamflow but the date at which they will <br />achieve that priority? <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: I think that should be our position--that the federal <br />government is not authorized to obtain a priority date of 1897 when the <br />authorizing legislation that set the forests up didn't refer to recrea- <br />tion or fishery use; it waspurel~ to preserve the watershed to stop <br />floods and provide a constant source of water and timber production. I <br />think New Mexico's position" on that is entirely correct. <br /> <br />MR" SPARKS: This focuses the whole problem of minimum streamflows. "We <br />have known about the problem for a number of'years. That is the reason <br />the staff recommended to the Board some years ago that the state should <br />do something about this minimum streamflow problem. We already knew <br />about the federal claims. There is no question whatsoever that the <br />federal government, the Forest Service particularly, will insist that <br />the minimum streamflows be established on lands within their jurisdiction. <br />Unfortunately, that encompasses most of the land in Colorado where water <br />originates. <br /> <br />We concluded that, if the state of Colorado would do something itself, <br />then we eould take some initiative away from the federal government in <br />a manner that Congress would perhaps agree to. Congress is very sympa- <br />thetic and is inclined to let the states solve prOblems if they will. I <br />When the federal government moves, it is when the states do nothing. <br />Much of the federal intervention that we have had in this country is <br />our own fault. We just have not done anything. We sit back and talk <br />mightily about states rights, but we don't do much to assert states ," <br />rights: <br /> <br />On this minimum streamflow, it will come one way or another on federal <br />lands, and that really catches us in Colorado. We felt years ago that <br />it was much better that the state do something than to have the federal <br /> <br />-40- <br />