Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Reservoir and raise concerns about flooding and the effect on the yield of the Aspinall Unit, as <br />well as about whether those flows are justified under the purposes of the Monument (now Park). <br />We filed a statement of opposition on behalf of the Board, State Engineer, and Division of <br />Wildlife. The final count on SOPs filed is over 380. The State of Colorado parties, the <br />United States, and fourteen other objectors filed a joint motion to confirm that venue is <br />proper in Water Division 4. We are conferring with objectors about conditions we would <br />require for agreeing to a stay requested by the United States. <br /> <br />2. Trout Unlimited v. U.s. Dept. of A2riculture, C.;\.. No. 96-WY-2686-WD. <br /> <br />Issue: Did the U.S. Forest Service act arbitrarily and capriciously when it signed the <br />Joint Operations Plan for Longdraw Reservoir without requiring by-pass flows? <br /> <br />Discussion: Fully briefed. Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />3. Nebraska v. Wyomin2, United States Supreme Court, No. 108, Ori2inal. <br /> <br />Issue: Has well pumping in Wyoming violated the existing Supreme Court decree that <br />apportions the North Platte River among Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska? Should the decree <br />be modified to add new injunctions against Wyoming? <br /> <br />Discussion: Still awaiting final report from Special Master recommending approval of <br />settlement. Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />4. Forest Service Reserved Ri2hts Cases, Case Nos. 8l-CW-220 et al., Water Division 2. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Discussion: The Forest Service, State, and other objectors have been engaged in formal <br />supervised settlement discussions since early 2000. . The parties remain very far apart on how <br />much water is needed for Forest purposes, and how to preserve water availability for future <br />development. The attorney for the Forest Service requested a meeting with the State to <br />discuss whether to continue settlement negotiations both in Division 2 and Division 7. This <br />meeting is scheduled for October 5. <br /> <br />5. Forest Service Reserved Ri2hts Cases, Case Nos. W-1l46-73 et a\., Water Division 7. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Discussion: See discussion for Division 2 case, above. Technical representatives of the <br />Forest Service, the State, and the Southwestern Water Conservation District continue to work on <br />assessing streams in the forests to determine both Forest Service and water user needs and to see <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />