WSP03499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o 1707 L -"- 502 Colo. .'._ ,- ......~."...:... 'r, -- 744 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES N.tion.1 Forest under favorable conditions depends upon the continuing integrity and efficient functioning of the natural stre.m channel conveyance system." In United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 98 S.Ct. 3012, 57 L.Ed.2d 1052 (1978). the United States Supreme Court held that the Organic Act and subsequent legislation demonstrated Congress' intent 'to reserve national forests for only two purposes: "[tJo ""nserve the water flows, and to furnish a oontinuous supply of tim. ber for the people." /d. at 707, 98 S.Ct. at 3017 (footnote omitted). Although the record of the proceedings on the Organic Act does not disclose an explicit Congres- sional intent to resenre sufficient water to presen-e instream water flows in the na- tional forests, we are not convinced that the federal government, by implication, did not intend to recognize such a right so long as it furthers a primary purpose of the Organic Act. 15] The Organic Act provides for and contemplates the diversion of water by pri. . vate parties within the national forests in accordance with state law. See 16 U.S.C. t 481 (1985) ("All waters within the ." national forests may be used for domestic, mining, milling, or irriga.tion purposes, un. der the laws of the State wherein such national forests are situated, or under the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations established thereunder."). In Denver l. however, we noted that federal purposes "cannot be subverred by sbite and private water diversions which jeopard. ize the existence of the national forests." 656 P.2d at 22. We disposed of a similar claim for implied federal reserved water rights to maintain instream flows in Water Divisions Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in Denver /, and upheld the water court's detennination "that since the United States did not claim any instream flow rights for the Organic Act of 1897 purposes of w.tershed and timber protection, the court could not award such water rights." /d. at 22. We further stated: Nowhere has the United States .hown t./r.at tcithout i...tream flows the pur- poaes of the national forests lOOuld be dereated. On the ""nUaT)', cnngrw.. al policies to further the economic dr.oI <lpment of the West would be fruslntoi if we were now to hold that the ...., private appropriators in the nations! I... ests must relinquish their long-utiliz<ol water rights to downstream 'pprop~ tors so that the fedenr.1 government '" maintain unneeded minimum stream flows. Many public and private sppn> priators--eities, industries, fanners, 8Ild nr.nchers-have depended on water div.,. sions from national forest lands high in the Rocky Mountains. Minimum fl... rights would upset these long.held eXjlr<- tations in favor of junior appropriato" downstream and outside the n.tional f.,. est reservations. We therefore find that the United States does not have an in- stream flow claim for reserved water rights in the national forests. 656 P.2d .t 23 (emphasis added and fOOl. note omitted). In the footoote after th, quoted language, we noted that the water court also concluded that no wster rights could be awarded to the United States be- cause it ufailed to claim any instream flou' right.. in its application for reserved rights in the national forests." Id. at n, 37 (emphasis added). We concluded that foot. note with this limitation on the scope of our opinion: "Because of our decision on in. stream flow rights we need not address whether the United States' applications were sufficiently explicit." Id. The water court interpreted this footnote to mean tN.t Denver / "held as a matter of law that instream flow claims could not be reeog. nized under the Organic Act" (emphasis in original). The water court misC<lnstrued our holding in Denver I. Our holding in Denver / was grounded upon the United States failure to assert a claim under the Organic Act. The master referee deter. mined that the United States had not "claimed the right to utilize reserved wa. ters for maintaining minimum stream flows and lake levels pursuant to the forest pur. pose [of securing favonr.ble conditions of water flows]" (emphasis in original). The trial court upheld that finding, and we stat. ed <lor ~ment in Denver /. At the end of the Denver 1 opinion we summarized our .-..-. ..,..,~... ~",,\usions in uphO. ...ter court's fIDo go.....ment has nO tr08m flow rights I , lional forest purpo. ingly, sny languag mum instream 00 reeognized, as a n Ind not binding 01 [61 In Denver ed States Suprer thst the statu wry bon in question m scrutiny to define. ....erved water rl of the reserved ' quires a careful. ..serred water n pose for which tl must rest upon' the w.ter the pu would be entirel 656 p.2d at 19 (, U.S. .t 700, 98 added). If, aft< the legislative h stances, the wa the purpose of entirely defeate' is allowed w m flows over the StateS should I water rights un erwise, the cia; cause the rese plied, rather t~ of the history ( ing to federal allocation, res' limited w the needed w ensl reservation w\ New Mezico, ~ at 3015." (7,81 Suml remedy and s) clear showing 1 t. On remanl in the manner IUUI County 0 36 (1982) (D< of . resel"Yed eumine the I