BOARD02139

• Board Meeting Date: 6/21/1974
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

Mr. Moses: This is a good time to comment on another instream m~n~mum
flow situation which has arisen. Well, we are going to be on the other
side of 'the coin. !-!any of you recall that there was considerable con-
cern among the water lawyers of the state, which shows that water
la\~ers are never quite unanimous on any subject, as to whether or not
the instream law itself was constitutional. We were assured at the
time of discussion that a test case would be promptly brought, but
there hasn't been any test case yet. But a water user on the Fryingpan
has now filed an application for change of diversion and change of
type of use. We already have decrees on the Fryingpan now for minimum
stream flows. So we filed a statement of opposition to that applica-
tion in which we were joined by a strange bedfellow called the South-
eastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Of course, they are con-
cerned about whether this will affect the minimum stream flows which
the district is required to maintain below its diversion canal. I
haven't had any communication with the applicant since we filed our
statement of opposition. I don't know whether he is going to claim
that our decrees are invalid because the statutes are unconstitutional
or not. If I were representing the applicant, it might just be an
appropriate time to find out about the validity of the act. This is
in process and we may get a statement on it by the Supreme Court before
it is allover.

I think you all know this by now. Let me say it again for the record.
The United States Supreme Court, about three weeks ago, denied the
petitions for rehearing in the Rainbow Bridge case. So that case is
completed, except for the supervision which Judge Ritter has over the
operations of the Bureau and the status of the bridge itself. And as
I understand it, the Bureau has made elaborate plans to monitor and
report to the Judge. As far as the right to store water is concerned,
I think it is an established right.

There were no statements of opposition filed to our application for
minimum stream flow in Boulder Creek, and I anticipate that we will get
a decree on that very shortly.

I have already mentioned the fact that negotiations are going on to
settle the federal claims in Divisions 4, 5 and 6. Every time we think
we have an agreement, something else comes up. I don't know whether
it can be solved or not. At the present time, we are trying to solve
everything, except the oil shale claims, by stipulation. We do have
some problems, such as the problem on the minimum flow at Dinosaur that
I mentioned earlier. At a pre-trial conference on claims in Division 7,
I understood we were supposed to submit a memorandum by July l.

-37-