WSP00964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. " 2672 . has consistently complied with state Jaws and practices in filing its water rights. However, especially in the Rocky Mountain West, the NPS had usually claimed as its water right quantities equating to "natural 110ws." In essence, NPS argued that its basic water needs included not only consumptive uses (Le., diversions), but also full instream 110ws. For the first time, the NPS had to quantify its claim for an instream flow where they did not control the headwaters of the stream. In pre- vlOUS cases, the quantification of instream flows at "head_ water parks" (where outside interests had no right of access) was largely pro [onruz). Thus, Dinosaur wasa precedent-setting case where the Interior Department had no direct, physical control over the upstream reaches of the river. At Dinosaur, the NPS based its claims for instream flows on three primary needs: water levels necessary to allow continued rafting in the Monument: water levels to sustain :the welfare of the en. dangered fish in the Yampa; and levels to maintain the riparian ecosystem, including the river channel bedforms, on a histori. cal basis. Because Colorado had amended its statutes in 1973 to in- clude "instream flow" as a ubeneficial use:~ the NPS believed that its f1ling for natural flows in the Yampa River adjudica. tion was simultaneously consistent With its preservation man- dates and with State law. The adjudication of Water Divi. sion 6 encompassed the portion of Dinosaur which was added to. the Monument in 1938. Hence, the NPS was anticipating the confirmation of a reserved water right with a priority date of 1938. The other major participant to the Water Division 6 adjudi. cation was the Colorado River Water Conservation District, which had acquired water rights with a priority date of 1959 for the purpose of constructing two large hyd[Qelectric dams and reservoirs upstream from Dinosaur. Juniper and Cross Mountain. Clearly, if the NPS sustained its claim for instream flows at "historic" levels, the Juniper.Cross Mountain interests might not be able to fill the impoundments. ROUND ONE - POLITICS The National Park Service's confidence seemed warranted when, on October 2, 1978, the Colorado District Court, sitting as Water Master for the adjudication, granted the NPS a con- ditional decree on all the reserved claims, to become absolute when the rights were quantified within fIve years (October 1983). Both the federal government and the Denver Water Board appealed the ruling (the Colorado Supreme Court deci- sion of November 29, 1982, actually lists over 300 appellees), on procedural grounds, to the Colorado Supreme Court. (The NPS objected to the requirement to "quantify" its claims, arguing that it deserved full "natural" flows. The pro- development interests challenged NPS's right to water for rafting. because recreational use was not an original purpose in the establishment of the Monument.) Nevertheless, the NPS ---- Bassin . ----- had a clear responsibility to protect its conditional rights by quantifying its claims to instream now. The National Park Service, with no prior experience of quantifying a claim for wildlife and aquatic habitat use, at- tempted to enlist the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's assistance to apply the latter's Instream. Flow Incremental Methodo- logy (IFIM) on the Yampa. The 1F1M simulates the incre' mental changes to the physical habitat of specific fish popu- lations. As a result of information provided by the NPS', Rocky Mountain Regional Office in late 1979, the Interior Department notified the Justice Department's trial attome.. in Denver that the FWS was working on the field researd, and would complete the necessary biological studies on which a soundly based position could be founded by sometime in 1981. However, a February 13, 1980, meeting in Denve, revealed that the NPS was only compiling natural nOM within Dinosaur and the FWS had not even begun work on the specifIc quantifIcations necessary to sustain a claim for the instream flows for the fIshery habitat. Justice's trial attorney severely criticized the Park Service for failure to take appropriate actions to quantify its claims and for the inter-agency problems between NPS and FWS of funding, staffing, and coordination. It was obvious to them that the quantification of reserved claimS for Dinosaur, far from being well on its way to completion, was still in its infancy. No effort at ascertaining the amount of water necessary for fish and aquatic life, ecosystem maintenance, preservation of aesthetic and recreational values, or boating in Dinosaur h,d yet been undertaken.. Moreover, absolutely no biological data had been developed on the needs of the endangered species of fIsh. The NPS had known of this situation for ,t least six years, yet nothing substantial has been done either to: (I) study the habits and needs of these fIsh; and (2) qu,n. tify the amount of water minimally necessary for maintenance of their habitat within Dinosaur. The Interior Solicitor's OffIce urged the NPS to meel with the FWS at the earliest time and agree on a mutual as- signment of resources. As late as the spring of 1981, the NPS .had asserted to the Justice Department and to the Colorado courts that full quantification would be com. pleted by the end of .1982. However, in written testimony to the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcom. mittee in the spring of 1980, the NPS described the status ,t Dinosaur and stated its intentions to: ". . . (q)uantify natural historic flow on Yampa River . through park. Yampa Rive, is a free flowing River with park situated in middle of its drainage. Minimal effort is required to establish natural historic flow. . . The Ser- vice is opposed to accepting less than the natural historic flow" [sic] (U.S. Congress, 1980). 1 f , g V tl a II 51 " f, b p t~ 01 cI fr V; fe vi te f} d ar V< I re ar I WI a, in', ar' ml tfl ~:I ca .. (, ':.~ 146 WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN .~ -.:g~