Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />forests. This settlement works in the Rio Grande Basin, where new water development on or <br />above the national forests is not anticipated. Future uses will continue to be an issue in <br />negotiations in Divisions 2 and 7. <br /> <br />Forest Service Reserved Rights Cases, Case Nos. 81-CW-220 et aI., Water Division 2. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instrearn flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decision: After several years of negotiations, including several reversals of position from <br />the Forest Service, the parties are beginning a formal settlement process supervised by ex-water <br />judge John Tracey. The State and all interested objectors met on March 10th to agree on a <br />written outline of their position to submit to Judge Tracey by March 24th. As before, the goals <br />remain protecting all existing water rights from both reserved rights claims and later Forest <br />Service demands for water through administrative means, and trying to protect some water for <br />needed future development on the forests. <br /> <br />Discussion: See discussion for Division 3 cases for general background. The Board may wish <br />to discuss the substance of the State's and Objectors' outline of settlement in more detail in <br />executive session. <br /> <br />Forest Service Reserved Rights Cases, Case Nos. W-1l46-73 et aI., Water Division 7. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U.S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decision: Technical representatives of the Forest Service, the State, and the Southwest <br />Water Conservation District continue to work on assessing streams in the forests to determine <br />both Forest Service and water user needs and to see if the two can be reconciled. The parties' <br /> <br />negotiation team met on February 22nd to assess progress so far. Another negotiating meeting is <br /> <br />set for April 6th, to agree on the technical work for the coming field season. <br /> <br />Discussion: See discussion for Divisions 2 and 3 cases for general background. It is still to <br />early in the process to assess whether settlement is likely in this division. <br /> <br />Kansas v. Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 105, Original. <br /> <br />Issue: What is the proper remedy for Colorado's past violation of the Arkansas River <br />Compact? <br /> <br />Decision: Pending. <br /> <br />Discussion: This case has been in litigation since Kansas sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme <br />Court in 1985, alleging that Colorado had violated the Arkansas River Compact. Special Master <br />Arthur Littleworth dismissed two of Kansas' three claims - involving Trinidad Reservoir and the <br />Pueblo Reservoir winter storage program - but found that post-compact well pumping had <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2 <br />