Laserfiche WebLink
Melinda Kassen : In the Gunnison basin , the upper basin commissioner sa id he thought if <br />the solution proposed by the seven basin states was accepted w e’d be “ safe ” for at least <br />17 years, because this compromise would protect against upp er basin calls. So even if <br />California and Arizona are already preparing, if the seven basin states solution works, is <br />what you’re doing premature? <br />Response: we are almo st late in some respects. Colorado has already faced issues during <br />negotiations with the seven ba sin states where we would like to have legal positions <br />established. I’m hoping we got started soon enough to be able to answer the legal <br />questions that come up. If the Secretary of the Department of Interior adopts the seven <br />basin states proposal, it will help the upper divi sion states. The low er div ision states, <br />however, have no problem saying they are willing to go to the mats on this issue if they <br />don’t g et certain amounts of water each year, despite the 10 - year rolling average <br />specification in the compact . They may take a chance and pursue legal action to protect <br />their water users, and we need to be ready. <br /> <br />Ted Kowalski ( CWCB ) : I f we get past the finish line with the seven states proposal, there <br />may be a time between now and when the 17 year period end s when Arizona decides to <br />sue. The agreements provide a process for doing this that is cumbersome and requires a <br />meeting between governors, but makes it p ossible . I w ould like to say we’re safe for 17 <br />years, but Arizona , Nevada and Cali fornia have a lot of difficult issues and may reach a <br />point in that time period when they don’t have any other choice but to sue. <br /> <br />Darryl Steele : Is the AG’s office working on water right issues internal to Colorado at <br />the same time ? Will each basin be asked to produce a certain portion of any downstream <br />wa t er required, or will strict priority administration be used across t he state? Can the two <br />co - exist: if we go basin by basin and not strict priority for administering a shortage, is <br />this still compatible with the prior appropriation system ? <br />Response: There is no precedent for that kind of question , because the State of Colorado <br />has never dealt with administering a stre am that crosses this many divisions. We are <br />l ooking at sta t e law agains t that backdrop and trying to determine whether the Supreme <br />Court and Legislature have given any direction in that area. <br /> <br />Rep. Kathleen Curry : D oes the AG’s office intend to issue an opinion to assist the State <br />Engineer in advance of any rulemaking? It doesn’t make sense for the State to spend <br />time focusing on options that may not have a strong legal basis. <br />Response: Any communication will pr obably be informal, however if the State <br />Engineer’s office requests a formal opinion, then that’s what we will do. We are working <br />hard to help the Engineer’s office not go down paths that may not have legal backing. <br /> <br />Stan Cazier: The State has had problems historically with educating Assistan t Attorney <br />Generals on Colorado River issues, and then losing them to other opportunities. Do you <br />have the ability and resources to tap knowledge outside the AG’s office? <br />Response: We have been very conscientious about that and have involved people like <br />Jim Lockhead. Colorado has always been a leader in the legal issues and legal theories <br />that make water development in the upper basin possible. We have s tarted to interview <br />and record folks that might not be around in 10 years when river issues heat up . <br /> 4 <br />