WSP03499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1702 -. ". ......- . ;~.:..~s:-~. .~--- ".~ ---' .. - ~-- r, "'~..:.. "","_, ....~~_ '._" . --o:.~~;.,. V.s. ~. JESSE ate.. 744 p..u 491 (Colo. 1M1) added), fo"'st ltes, iD 'er the it had ;;.in the tm in. ng (he :13ctin, its the , Jar,. I sub- , no ore" '>po- 'Ie > .po. and the i. .... or or '<I, ,.j water flows and natural lake levels ",thetic, recreational, and wildlife .: !'I'ation purposes. See, e.g., Denver I, ~ P.2d I (Colo.1982); Avondale l.-riga- ,[)is' v. North Idaho Properties, Inc., ; Idaho 30, 577 P.2d 9 (1978); Mimbres ;,J1q Irrigation Co. v. Salopek, 90 N .M. ,:0, 564 P.2d 615 (1977), aiI'd, 438 U.s. ,%,98 S.Ct. 3012, 57 L.Ecl.2d 1052 (1978). so",ver, in United Stata v. New Mexico, ;l' U.S. 600, 98 S.Ct. 3012, 57 L.Ecl.2d 1052 :l78), the Supreme Court rejected claims '.IT reserved instream water rights and old that the Organic Act and its predeces- ;lr bills evidence a congressional intent to ,..l"Ie the national forests for only two '''1'''ses: (I) to secure favorable conditions ;1 water flows, and (2) to furnish a continuo "" supply of timber for the use and neces- ,Ilies of the people. 438 U.S. at 707~8, 98 SeL at 3017-18. Because the national for- lStS were reserved for watershed and tim. !I" protection alone, the United States rould not claim reserved water rights for ",thetic, recreational and wildlife pur- l'JSos' Id. The Supreme Court also held that the adoption of MUSY A neither broad- ened the water rights impliedly reserved VI'hen the national iorests: were created, nor reserved sdditiona) water to achieve the supplemental purposes of preserving recre- ation, range and wildlife values. In Denver I, 656 P.2d 1 (Colo.1982), we applied New Mexico to a general adjudica- tion of water rights in Water Divisions Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in Western Colorado. In lJe1rver I, the United States claimed rt'- aerved water rights to maintain instream /lows in seven national forests. Relying on Now Mexico, we rejected the United States' claim for water rights to preserve instream flows, and held: (I) that the United States does not have reserved in.stream flow ~t/rq/tAr .18~d ". · outd40. IDatersh.,( .'08es. n. tared 10 6r terogatu". 'natil>7lal '/fortlt i. erein shsIJ e iUrisd;,. Ie 8ei'el'l1 nd fISh.. g herein ~ the us. 'Ilroes of t the .... ",ds not ,. .. In Ntw Mexico, Justice Powell in dissent de. clared ehal "dle Uniled S18.lcS is not baITed from usening that riJbts to minimum instream nows might be necessary for erosion control or fire protection on the basis of the recognized pur. poses of watershed management and the main- tcnana of timber ," 438 US. at 724--25. 98 S.CI, at 3026 (Powell, J.. dissrnlina) (Citation omit- ted). However, the United States offered no evidence in N~ Me:r:ico to demonstrate that minimum instream flows were needed for lim. ber and watershed protection. Boles. EUiol, N o Colo. 497 rights to protect eecreational, scenic, or wildlife values in the national forests, 656 P.2d at 22-23, and (2) that the United States did not daim or prove that in.strearn flow rights were neeessary to achieve the national forest purposes of timber and wa- tershed protection, id. No appeal was tak- en by any party from our decision in Den- ver/. Ill. DlVlS10N TWO LmGATION In May 1979, the United States was joined as a party to a compoehensive adju- dication of water rights in Water Division No.2, which is comprised of all the lands in Colorado that lie in the drainage basins of the Arkansas and Dry eimanon rivers and streams tributary to those rivers. See A 37-92-201, 15 C.R.S. (1973). In Decem- ber of that year, the United States filed a general application for adjudication of all its reserved and appropriative water rights in Water Division No.2, which indudes land in the San Isabel and Pike National Forests. Owing to the complexity of the ease, the water court for Water Division No. 2 entered an order on December 9, 1980, permitting the United States to file separate, specific applications supplement- ing the December 1979 general application for water rights, and ordered that each supplemental application would relate back to the date of the general application. The United States, pursuant to the order, filed nineteen supplemental applications in the water court claiming reserved water rights in the Pike and San Isabel National For- ests. In each supplemental application, the United States BOught adjudication of im- plied federal reserved water rights to main- 51 U.Colo.Re'\I. at 229. Also in several rec:enl cases. the Unil~ Slates has failed 10 adduce sufficienl evidence 10 prove that minimum stream flows are necessary to achieve the nar. row purposes of the Organic Act. Su United SiDle "'. Alpine LAnd '" Rf!U'1VOi,. C~. 697 F .2d 851,858-59 (9th Cir.), cerr. tknidt, 464 U.s.ll<\3, 104 S.c.. 193, 78 LEd.td 17() (1983); United su."" v. Q'ty at Dmver, 656 P.2d 1,22-23 (Colo. t982); Avondale Irription District V. North Ida- I/o Properties, In<.. 99/daho 30, 39,577 P.2d 9, 18 (1978).