Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. Three Forks. Ranch v. City of Cheyenne. Wyomine State En2ineer. and WYOmin2 <br />Water Development Commission. Civil Action No. 02-D-0398 (MJW) (D.C. Colo.) <br /> <br />The 10th Circuit appeal of this case (which raises the issues of whether a private water user <br />can sue another state under an interstate water compact) is now fully briefed. Both Three Forks <br />and the Wyoming State Engineer have requested oral argument. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, <br />and the Upper Colorado River Commission have all participated as amici curiae (taking the <br />position that only states may sue other states). It is unlikely that amici will be able to participate <br />in oral argument if it is granted. <br /> <br />6. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement. Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F & <br />76J. 02-CW-85. & 02-CW-86. <br /> <br />These cases involve conforming the Tribes' water rights, settled through consent decrees in <br />1991, to the final configuration of the Animas-La Plata Project. The state has filed pleadings in <br />support of the applications. Citizens' Progressive Alliance is the only active objector. At the <br />beginning of October, the judge issued three orders denying virtually all of the Citizens <br />Progressive Alliance motions attacking the validity of the 1991 consent decrees. Numerous <br />other motions on various issues are pending, and will probably be argued at a status conference <br />set for November 19. <br /> <br />7. Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado. United States Supreme Court. No. 126. Ori2inal. <br /> <br />The Special Master filed his final report certifying the completion and adoption of the <br />Republican River Compact Administration ground water model developed by the three states. <br />The Supreme Court issued an order October 20 receiving the Master's report. By operation of <br />their order last spring, that means the case is closed. Colorado now has through 2007 to ensure <br />that its uses, as partially determined by the model, are in compliance with the Compact and the <br />Final Settlement Stipulation. <br /> <br />8. Black Canyon ofthe Gunnison National Park Reserved Ri2hts Case. No. W-437. Water <br />Division 4. <br /> <br />As the Board is aware, the State and representatives ofthe National Park Service, Bureau of <br />Reclamation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service signed an agreement on April 2. In the pending <br />United States case, the United States moved to amend its application to claim only 300 cfs. Land <br />and Water Fund of the Rockies (now known as Western Resource Advocates), Trout Unlimited, <br />and others (collectively Environmental Opposers) filed a brief opposing the amendment as <br />prejudicial to them. In conjunction with the major water users, we filed a brief in support of the <br />US's motion for leave to amend. At the status conference on September 5, the Environmental <br />Opposers announced that they were filing federal court litigation challenging the April 2 <br />agreement, and asked the water court to stay the quantification case in the meantime. On <br />October 7, Judge Patrick granted the Environmental Opposers' motion for stay pending <br />resolution of their recently filed federal action. After consultation, on November 3 we joined <br />the major water users in filing a petition for Colorado Supreme Court review of the stay. The <br />Environmental Opposers are asking for unprecedented relief in their federal court case: an order <br />directing the United States to secure sufficient water to protect the Black Canyon, and an order <br />. "holding unlawful and setting aside" the United States' motion to amend their reserved rights <br /> <br />3 <br />