WSP07099

• File Number: 8064
• Description: Section "D" General Federal Issues/Policies - Indian Water Rights
• State: CO
• Date: 7/24/1983
• Author: Hank Meshorer
• Title: Federal Reserved Water Rights Litigation, 28th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

~d
I,

L

~d

':e

!

'e

:,g

d

344
ene

____"':.-:.:~Ift'~- .

0784

G.

2 .

.

Such de
shorten
rights,

.

'I

facto quantification will not necessarily
the time required to inventory such
however.

Querry - enforceability of de facto quanti:ica-
tion through the use of discovery procedures.
Can a state forum force federal quantification
through the use of di~covery procedures?

4. Discovery costs against the United States may
not be allowable under the McCarran Amendment,
43 U.S.C. 5666.

3 ,

E. Pre-Trial Motions

1.

Effectively used, pre-trial motions can help
direct and focus the trial; e.g., instream flows,
jurisdiction, estoppel, purposes and uses of
reservation, etc.

2. Allows for free discovery on theory of case.
Denver v. United States, Colorado Supreme Court,
79 SA 344.

3. Better in many respects to a Pre-Trial Order
which, in complex water cases, can easily bccone
one of a series of "clarification orders".
Cf. United States v. Denver, Colorado Supreme
Court, No. 79 SA 99 and 100'.

F.

Quantification -- Although required "quantification"
may no longer be tantar.lOunt to a "final ~olution" of
reserved rights. Colville Confedp.rated Tribes v.
Walton, 647 F.2d 42 (9th Cir., 1981); Cappaert, supra
United States v. New Mexico, supra.

1. Methodology for quantification of instrearn uses
still being developed. Denver v. United State5,
Colorado Supreme Court, No. 79 SA 344.

2.

Time required for quantification may be too long
for the litigants. Denver v. United States,
Colorado Supreme Court, No. 79 SA 344, and it
is unclear whether a court can order quantifica-
tion to be completed in a shorter period.
United Statc~ v. Denver, Colorado Supreme Court,
Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100.

Forest Service Instream Uses After New Mexico --
Although seemingly foreclosed by the New Mexico
decision. the right for instream uses for the ful-
fillment of the dual purposes of "watershed manage-
ment" and "preservation of timber" remains clouded.

24-3

....

.'