Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />NFS lands on the San Isabel and Pike National Forests in Water <br />Division 2 and the San Juan National Forest in Water Division 7. <br /> <br />The Water Court in Water Division 2 granted summary judgment in favor <br />of the State of Colorado and several other objectors on the basis that <br />the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in United States v. Denver. <br />656 P.2d 1. 22-23 (Colo. 1982) barred such claims under the doctrines <br />of collateral estoppel and stare decisis. The United States appealed <br />to the Colorado Supreme Court. Briefs have been filed and oral argu- <br />ments were heard on July 1, 1987. It is, therefore uncertain whether <br />the United States will be allowed to present claims for instream flow <br />to protect the primary purposes of the National Forests. This issue <br />is moot in Water Division 4, 5, and 6 because the Water Court has <br />entered final judgment following the decision in United States v. <br />Denver, supra. <br /> <br />c. Colorado Water Conservation Board Instream Flows and Lake Levels <br /> <br />It is unclear at this time whether any entity other than the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board can make an appropriation for an instream <br />flow or minimum lake level. The Board does have many water rights in <br />the various wilderness areas to protect the environment to a "reason- <br />able degree." However, the quantities appropriated appear to be <br />primarily for fisheries purposes and would need to be evaluated in a <br />specific situation to determine whether such quantities would be <br />meaningful for wilderness water resource protection. <br /> <br />In any event, as we have already pointed out, assertion of any kind of <br />water right is not a necessary means of protection of the water <br />resources of the 24 wilderness areas at issue in this case. <br />