WSP07099 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 0'135 1. United States v. Denver, Colorado Supreme Court, Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100; Uni ted States v. New l1exico supra; Denver v. United States, Colorado supreme Court, Do. 79 SA 344. See also Forest Service Organic Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. 5475. A similar unresolved question remains with regard to the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C. 528, as a basis for an instream flow for those broader purposes but with a 1960 prior- ity date. United States v. New Mexico, supra; United States v. Denver, Colorado Supreme Court, llos. 79 SA 99 and 100. H. Are newly discovered uses not contemplated at the time of the creation of the reservation but reasonably related to the original res~rvation purpose entitled to: (l) a reserved right, (2) ~1ith a priority clete not as of the initiation of such newly discovered use but as of the date of the creation of the reser- vation? (e.g., recreational boating in a national park) United States v. Denver, Colorado Supreme Court, llos. 79 SA 99 and 100. 1. Would recognition of this principle resuscitate the accusation of the "open-endedness" of reserved rights. 2. Forest Service suggestion of an initial and final quantification out of which all newly discovered uses must draw their water but with the original priority date. United States v. Denver, Colorado Suprene Court, Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100. I. Use of a reserved right by a non-federal entity a multi-faceted question with no easy answer. 1. Indian allottees and concessionaire at national parks entitled to use of reserved waters. Collville, supra, but oil shale lessees not so entitled. United States v. Denver, Colo- rado Supre~c Court, Nos. 79 SA 99 and 100. 2. Courts increasingly are scrutinizing the perti- cular reserving documents under the narrow New Mexico viewpoint. J. Use of reserved waters an s -- Appurtenant "adjacent". on non-ad'acent reserved may not necessar~ y mean 24-4 -'-, --- .- .