|
<br />-
<br />
<br />r "'7
<br />!ed u,at PUt.
<br />~nditions f
<br />. defeated ::
<br />,wed to JDaim.
<br />Over United
<br />Stales "ouJd
<br />er rights III).
<br />! I'e8ervstion
<br />~e mini"'lII!I
<br />'u'" thatlhe
<br />ould not br
<br />if 475-482.
<br />
<br />....t:ic "''''''
<br />'POn a clear
<br />'le issue of
<br />Ig P8rt). is
<br />." of 10...
<br />
<br />led genu.
<br />) whether
<br />lofficient
<br />IlmfJows
<br />order to
<br />!Je of se-
<br />er flows
<br />IJlaJ for.
<br />
<br />tion of
<br /><ling if
<br />rted is
<br />prior
<br />estop.
<br />.rivity
<br />u'ere
<br />I u'e
<br />;aiDst
<br />fulJ
<br />Ie in
<br />
<br />I'Om
<br />,to
<br />mal
<br />,ot
<br />low
<br />
<br />u.s. v, JESSE
<br />0......744 P.2d 49' (Colo. t9S7)
<br />production 8Ild water States in a comprehensive adjudication of
<br />water rights in Wster Division No.2. The
<br />claims on which summary judgment was
<br />granted involve federal reserved water
<br />rights in u'e Pike and San Isabel National
<br />Foresta, which are located in Water Divi.
<br />sion No.2. The United States asserts u,at
<br />u'e withdrawal of the Pike and San Isabel
<br />National Forests from u'e public domain
<br />implicitly reserved appurtenant water nec.
<br />essary to maintain minimum instream
<br />flows over u'e forest lands. In Uniud
<br />Statu v. City and County of Denver, 656
<br />P.2d I (Colo.1982) (Denver /). the United
<br />States failed W claim that such rights were
<br />necessary to achieve the purposes for
<br />which the national forests were created
<br />under the Organic Administration Act of
<br />1897, 16 U.S.C. ~~ 47f>-482 (1982) (the Or-
<br />ganic Act). The United States now con.
<br />tends that recent advances in the science of
<br />fluvial geomorphology demonstrate that
<br />minimum instream water flows are neces-
<br />sary W preserve efficient stream channels
<br />in the national forests and "to s.cure fa.
<br />vorable conditions of water flows," one of
<br />the purposes for which the national forests
<br />were created under the Orgsnic Act. The
<br />water court for Water Division No.2 re-
<br />jected the claim and held (I) that, as a
<br />matter of law, the Organic Act did not
<br />implicitly reserve appurtenant water neces-
<br />sary to maintain instream water flows in
<br />the national foreats, and (2) that our deci.
<br />sion in Denver I collaterall)' eswpped the
<br />United States from claiming a reserved
<br />right to maintain minimum instrearn water
<br />. flows in the national foresls. We reverse
<br />and remand wiU, directions for further pro-
<br />ceedings consistent with this opinion.
<br />
<br />-,
<br />
<br />16S.3
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />'fillS for timber
<br />'.' purposes.
<br />
<br />F, Henry Habicht, II, Assl. Atty. Gen.,
<br />[land C. Shilwn, Robert 1.. Klarquist,
<br />hshington, D.C., Robert N. Miller, U.S.
<br />,(tl)'., John R. Hill, Jr., Denver, for appel.
<br />onl
<br />Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B.
<br />Bowe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H.
<br />fonnon, Sol. Gen., Robert A. Hykan, Asat.
<br />,Illy. Gen., Denver, for appellee State of
<br />Colo,
<br />
<br />Wayne D. Williams, Michael 1.. Walker,
<br />w.y S. Funk, Denver, Saunders, Snyder,
<br />Ross & Dickson, P.C., Jack F. Ross, Glenn
<br />G, Saunders, Denver, for appellee City and
<br />County of Denver.
<br />
<br />Fairfield and Woods, Howard Holme,
<br />.evin B. Pratt, Michael B. Genoways, Den.
<br />.or, for appellee Southeastern Colorado
<br />Water Conservancy Dial.
<br />
<br />John U. Carlson, Denver, for Twin Lakes
<br />Res.rvoir and Canal Co.
<br />
<br />Law Office of Robert F.T. Krassa, P.C.,
<br />Robert F.T. Krassa, Pueblo, for appellees
<br />St. Chsrles Mesa Water Ass'n and Pueblo
<br />West Metropolitan Dist.
<br />
<br />Kelly, Stansfield & O'Donnell, Timothy J.
<br />Flanagan, Denver, for appellee Public Ser.
<br />vice Co. of Colorado.
<br />
<br />Donald H. Hamburg, Glenwood Springs,
<br />for appellee Colorado River Water Conser.
<br />vation Dist.
<br />
<br />Miuhell & Miuhell, P.C., Rexford L.
<br />Miuhell, Rocky Ford, for appellees Catlin
<br />Qmal Co. and Arkanaas Valley Ditch
<br />Ass'n.
<br />
<br />Davia, Graham and Stubbs, John M.
<br />Sayre, Robert V. Trout, Denver, for amicus
<br />curiae Northern Colorado Water Conserv.
<br />ancy Diat.
<br />
<br />Ward H. Fischer, William R. Fischer,
<br />Fort Collins, for amicus curiae Cache La
<br />Poudre Water Uaers Ass'n.
<br />
<br />ERICKSON, Justice.
<br />
<br />Thia is an appeal from partial summary
<br />judgment entered against the United
<br />
<br />-_..~~......~.. ~'--~,
<br />
<br />Colo. 493
<br />
<br />1.
<br />
<br />THE FRAMEWORK OF
<br />IMPUED FEDERAL
<br />
<br />RESERVED WATER RIGHTS
<br />
<br />[1,21 When the United States with.
<br />draws land from the public domain and
<br />reserves u'e land for a federal purpose,
<br />appurtenant water u'en unappropriated is
<br />implicitly reserved to the extent necessary
<br />to aceomplish the purpose of the reserva.
<br />
<br />
|