BOARD

• Board Meeting Date: 1/24/2001
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 2

initial public mcetings, with the promise of more public involvement later, which never
materializcd. The magnitude of the flows claimed in the quantification that was tiled .
excecd the powcr plant cilpacity at Crystal Rcservoir and raise concerns about flooding
and the effect on the yicld of the Aspinall Unit, as well as about whether those flows arc
justitied under the purposes of the Monument (now Park). The Board may want to discuss
tit is filing and the state's response in executive session.

2. Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, CA. No. 96-WY-2686-WD.

Issue: Did the U.S. Forest Service act arbitrarily and capriciously when it signed
the Joint Operations Plan for Longdraw Reservoir without requiring by-pass flows?

Decision: This case has been on hold since 1996. In October 2000 the federal
magistrate ruled in favor of the State's motion to intervene. Briefing will begin in March
2001.

Discussion: In the early 1990s, several reservoirs in the Roosevelt National Forest were
up for renewal of their special use permits from the Forest Service. A Joint Operations
Plan ("JOP") among the owners of some of the reservoirs and the Forest Service was
agreed to after substantial modeling showed that the JOP was the most feasible plan to
preserve the rights of the water owners as well as improve the overall fish h.lbitat. After
the agreement was signed in 1994, Trout Unlimited sued. The most important of its 13
claims is that the Forest Service was required by law to require a bypass flow to maintain
instream flows below Longdraw Reservoir (owned by Water Supply & Storage). Thus, the
two main issues are whether the Forest Service has the authority to require by-pass flows .
when renewing reservoir permits in the national forests, and if so, whether the Forest
Service had the obligation to require a by-pass flow in this case. The case was originally
lodged in federal court in Washington D.C., but has been moved to Colorado for further
proceedings. The CWCB and SEO strongly supported the JOP and will explore options
for joint defenses with other defendants. The case will be briefed in the spring and early
summer of2001.

3. Nebraska v. Wyoming, United States Supreme Court, No. 108, Original.

Issue: Has well pumping in Wyoming violated the existing Supreme Court decree that
apportions the North Platte River among Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska? Should the decree
be modified to add new injunctions against Wyoming?

Decision: Trial was scheduled to begin on May 10th. Nebraska and Wyoming reached
agreement on "Principles for Settlement" virtually on the courthouse steps. The proceedings
ha ve been stayed until December 1 st to allow the parties to draft the legal documents necessary
to implement the principles. The settlement includes creating a North Platte Decree Committee
with members from Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, and Reclamation to improve communication
and monitor compliance with the decree.

Discussion: Although there are no claims against Colorado, as a party to the existing decree
we are a party to this case. We have participated on a limited basis because Nebraska has raised .