WSP03499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1703 ..,-rt....:- -..... . . .. ~-,. -":: - , J---t . 41."-'" . )'.... . .' .. ~-~. l . 498 Colo. _ _" MO!..:. ~~_ 744 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES tain natural lake levels and water flows in streams, oreeks, and rivers in the national forests for the purposes of securing favor. able conditions of water flows and furnish- ing a continuous suW1y of timber.' The applications asserted that the water rights were neoessary for watershed and stream ohannel proteotion, soil oonservation, ero- sion oontrol, flood control, and the growth, management, and produotion of timber. On Deoember 18, 1984, the State of Col", rado, the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company, the Southeastern Colorado Wa. ter Conservancy District, and the City of Denver, all objectors to the United States' application for reserved and appropriative water rights in Water Division No.2, filed s motion for partial summary judgment on the United States' claim for reserved water rights to protect instream water flows and natural lake levels in the national forests. The movants relying on collateral estoppel and stare decisis, &5serted that our decision in Den!'er I foreclosed any claim for re- served instream flow rights in the national forests. The United States opposed the motion, stating in a memorandum to the water court that Denver J was not disposi- tive of the Division No.2 adjudication be- cause instrearn flow rights were claimed in Denver I only for the purpose of protecting recreational, scenic, and wildlife values pur- suant to MUSY A, and not for the purpose of securing favorable oonditions of water flows pursuant to the 1897 Organic Act. 7. The United Stales also claimed reserved water rights under MUSY A to pro\'ide Cor recreational, range, wildlife. and fish protection in the Pike and San Isabel National Forests. The United Stales con~s on appeal thai the MUSY Are. served no water rights in the national forests. . Su NeM' Mexico. 438 U.S. 113-15. 98 S.Ct. at 3020-21; Dmy.. I. 656 P.2d at 2....27. 8. Because the affidavit or Hilton L. Silvey was the onh' evidence 5UbmiUed by the United SLates in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, we include a substantial pon.ion of i1. For several yean. because of the Foresl Service responsibility and concern for water- shed management. 1 and olher Forest Service hydrologists have been considering the effects of stream flow on SITeaJ11 channel conditions and the responses of stream channels to changes in the flow regime. Initial effortS were directed towards evalu. ating responses of stream channels 10 in- The United States stated in the me.... dum that recent advanoes in the soie... ( "fluvial geomorphology" have shown lis; strong, recurring instream wster flo",. neeesl<al"Y to maintain efficient BII!so ohannels and to secure favorsble conditiao, of water flows, and that diversions 01 .. ter within the national forests by p",,- appropriators reduce stream flows I8i threaten the equilibrium that pre.."" natural stream channels. In support or ill olsim, the United States offered the affido vit of Hilton Silvey, a hydrologist employ.. by the United States Forest Service, ..hi:! stated that "instream flow requirernoDo must be based on fundamental principl.. n1 fluvial geomorphology." One such Print> pl. is that frequently recurring flows lorm and maintain natural stream channels. Un less these flows are available on a frequent basis, the channel system's equilibrium will be changed, thereby diminishing the cap><> ty of the ohannels to "carry subsequen, flows of equal or greater magnitude," Ba.sed on its consideration of seven! factors enumerated in the affidavi~ the United States Forest Service concluded "that instream flows are required to main. tain the natural channels in a state of rela- tive equilibrium in order to deliver water to the ultimate user under favorable condi- tions," According to the affidavit, mainte- nance of instream flows would rarely, rl ever, curtail the operation of existing wster Ulles snd developments.' creased water yields that can resuh from land managemenl activitieii such as timber harvest. ing. Consideration of stream channel reo spon5C to incTeased water yield nalurall,: Ie:! to the question of how much stream now IS required in a channel system to maintain lhe natural capacitles faT transmitting stream flow and transporting sediment. Beginning with the earl}' 1970's, our ~fforts at instream flow quantificalion were original- ly concentrated on quantifying those flows necessary for fisheries maintenance. During thai time. Forest Scrviu e5).'lCrtis.e in the com. plex subject area of fluvial Beomorphology Wti just being established, The concepts of in.uream flows for stream channel mamie, Dance had not ~n spectfically addressed. Since the late 1970's. and panially in reo sponse to the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court deci- sion in Uni4ed SlatCJ v. New Mexico, our em. phasis on instream flow quantification shifted from fisheries maintenance to stream channel -~ The y;;l. tummary rnamll' r~eri' prim;:!! lkl" With a Wyoffl bef.,n olog:. timin) uinin chanr that ~ "ceO! funCl In ed to. '0(\ fI lal P hold and ofv-' no....' thO' will cap, nov Wi qui, SIal w. e<>' Oul ~ no m' ... ht f( ... d " c' b d II v