WSP02201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,,1"'l"O.'4 Club is seeking party status to the case. In addition. in 1985, the Sierra Club obtained a lo.....er court rul. ing seeking all of the unap. propriated .....ater f1o.....ing through .....i1derness areas. The federal judge did nol specify whether the priority date for tht' .....ilderness rights would bf' when the land .....as first withdrawn or date .....i1derness designation .....as adopted. At the close of 1985. thf' River District and most of Colo. rado's .....ater communit). .....ere preparing for an appeal. This. because if left to stand. the ruling .....ould have the effect on com. munities in Eastern and Western Colorado of prohibiting gro.....th of any kind. perhaps forcing substan- tially reduced water consumption. perhaps even cuttinJi:" off somp users altogethl'r. In two separate but significant reserved rights cases, thl' River District is opposing federal claims to Colorado River .....ater for the oil shale reserve west of Rifh>. becausf' the rest'r\'{' does not touch tht' river. Also. the Rivl'r District .....as succl'ssful in thl' lower court fight over massive federal claims for Dinosaur Na. tional Mounument. The federal government is appealing in its quest for a 1938 priority date for what at times .....ould be the l>ntire flow of lhl' Yampa River. The River District's position is that the 1938 withdrawal expanding the Monumt'nt. as describl'd in the Sl'cretary of Interior's letter transmitting thl' presidential pro. clamation, describes the purposl's as bl'ing for rock formations. dinosaur remains. pre. historic cave dwellings. etc., uses that re- quire little water, Thp federal government has argued that the purpOse of expanding the :-'Ionu. ment was to preServe everything in its natural statl'. If thE' fedE'ral gO\"E'rnment prt"vails at a higher court. th(>n no n(>w upstr(>am dh'ersion in thf' Yampa Basin of :\Ioffat and Routt count it's would be pflrmitted and water users with a right aftf'r July 14, 1938 could he shut off. Oher matters of interest and concern Decisions made and E'vents tak. ing place in Washington. Denver. Phoenix. San Diego and other places continued to impact Western Colorado in 1985. The River District's Congressional and Legislative Affairs Committee was extremely bus)' through the year studying and monitoring ac. tivities in Denver and Washington and proceeding according-ly. Scores of water bills in the Colo- rado !eKislature were analyzed: some werfl supported. some Wl're opposed, many wpre ignorl'd. Though a pioneer in its own right in the arl'3S of federal rf:'servl'd rights and impacts of tht, Endangered Species Act, the River District has hl'E'n suppor. ting the relatively new effort of the Colorado Water Congress in hath arf'as. If f'ither issue was taken Lo its logical ronclusion a Colorado Squawfish or national park could han> the l>ffpct of shut. ting off all ups! ream uSflrs. In t hl' Colorado Water Congress and thl' U.s. Congress. the RiVt'r Distrit.t has been urging adoption of en. dang-en'd spt'cil's mitigation measures other than massivf' quantities of watN, other than the entire flow of the Colorado River. It was in 1985 that watf'r was first ddiVt'rfld through the massh'l', $3.5 billion Central Arizona Project. San Diego, fflar. ful of tht' slack r('moved from the river by Arizona. exprl'ssed in. terest in 1t'3sinK Westt'rn Colo- rado waler. as proposed by a private developer. Tht' River District board authorized ex. amination of the political and legal ramifications of exporting water from tht' state, while re- 7 taining dominion over that water. The board's interest is quite similar to investigation of tem- porary leasing or exchanges with the Front Range: lease presently unused watl>r temporarily to Denver or San Diego for revenue that could construct projects in \\'estern Colorado so thE' .....ater is available when needed in thl' region. One alternative to that is avoid an.\' in\'estigation, lose the water tt'mporarily and pflr- manently by default. and have no mone)' to construct projects. When the Ct'ntral Arizona Pro. ject was authorized by CongrE'ss in 1968. fiv(' Western Colorado projects were also authorized - it .....as to be a balanced approach to river development. Three of those projt'cts remain to be built. and the Rivt'r District continued to press for Tl'distribution of Colo- rado River Storage Project revenues or a surchargl' on thosp rl'Vl>nues to construct the pro. jects. In 1985. some nine years aft('r Congressional adoption of BLM's Fed('ral Land Policy and Managf'. mt'nt Act. it .....as discovt'rE'd that portions of thl' Act were being in. terpret('d to prevent owners of water facilities on federal land from maintaining thost.' facilities. t.'\'("n if tht>)" Wt>rt' constructed hefore the Act .....as adopted. The Ri\'N District. through amend. mf'nt to the Act or otherwise, is pushin,i{ for rl'asonable protection to the vested rights. And in 1985. in the furtht'ranct' of tht> forum and .....ater education. the Rivi'T District supported the Western State Colll'ge Water Workshop on transmountain water divt'r'sions, and used its contribution for 15 scholarships to th{' session a.....arded to .....orthy candidatt's intl'Tested in .....ater resource issues.