My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04842
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04842
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 10:27:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:41:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8067
Description
Section D General Federal Issues/Policies-Section 7 Consultations
Date
7/14/1976
Author
Frank E Maynes
Title
Federal Water Rights 1973-83-A General Discussion of the Federal Reserved Rights Doctrine
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />002(}9S <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, >.. <br /> <br />be further complicated by the additional ingredient of Indian water <br /> <br />rights as to those Colorado Indian tribes. It is difficult to imagine <br /> <br />the further compliations which might result from claims made by other <br /> <br />Indian tribes outside Colorado, such as the Navajo Indian Tribe with its <br /> <br />vast reservation lands in Arizona and New Mexico. <br /> <br />We need not await the outcome of court decisions, however, to feel' <br /> <br />the impact on state water rights. Recently I received a request <br /> <br />from a fellow attorney to comment on a statement of opposition which was <br /> <br />'filed by-the United Stat'es against 'one of his clients in Water Division' <br /> <br />No.4., The' basis for the opposition of his client's water right was <br /> <br />that: (1) - The point of diversion was located upon the public lands of <br /> <br />'the-United'States and that the'waterCclaimant had no vested right to the <br /> <br />use of the waters located thereon, (2) that the applicant did not have <br /> <br />a permit or right of way required by law for the use of such waters, and <br /> <br />(3) the water claimant's proposed development violated the water' <br /> <br />interest of the United States of America. This may sound on the surface <br /> <br />as though there were huge amounts of water involved that would in fact <br /> <br />'-deprive"the"llnited...gtates; however, the fact of the matter is that ,it, <br /> <br />involved a filing for a small amount of water to serve the domestic <br /> <br />needs of about 35 property owners. <br /> <br />The federal reserved water"rights are here to stay. We are moving <br /> <br />toward a resolution of issues which have too long been dormant and <br /> <br />ignored. It is obvious that water rights acquired pursuant to federal <br /> <br />law should be integrated with water rights acquired under state law. <br /> <br />The integration, consolidation, and recording of these water rights will <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, " <br /> <br />-~- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.