Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. 2. Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dept. of A~riculture, C.A. No. 96-WY-2686-WD. <br /> <br />The case was argued before the U.S. District Court on April 4th. Wendy Weiss provided the <br />primary oral argument for the intervenors (Colorado and certain water users). This is the case <br />where Trout Unlimited challenged the Forest Service's decision not to impose a condition <br />requiring bypass flows in its renewal ofthe special use permit for Longdraw Reservoir. We are <br />waiting for the decision. <br /> <br />3. Forest Service Reserved Rights Cases, Case Nos. 81-CW-220 et aI., Water Division 2. <br /> <br />In late December of2001, after extensive consultation with many of the objectors in these <br />cases W endy Weiss prepared and sent to the U.S. Forest Service a letter, joined in by a number <br />of the other objectors, listing the conditions the objectors would require in order to agree to a <br />stipulated dismissal of the reserved rights claims in Division 2. The conditions were that the <br />dismissal be "with prejudice" - meaning that the claims could not be re-filed - and that the <br />United States should reimburse the costs of those objectors who qualify under the federal Equal <br />Access to Justice Act. The U.S. asked for estimates of parties' costs and attorney fees to inform <br />its response. It now has that information. Jim DuBois, the DOJ attorney handling the case, said <br />they are meeting to discuss it on May 30th and he will respond soon after. <br /> <br />4. Forest Service Reserved Ri~hts Cases, Case Nos. W-1146-73 et aI., Water Division 7. <br />Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />. 5. Kansas v. Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 105, Original. <br /> <br />Several issues still remain to be tried: whether Colorado was in compliance from 1997 on, <br />and how future compliance should be determined. The states have exchanged expert reports and <br />are presently far apart on how it should be determined. Weare also at odds on the proper <br />method for calculating the damages due to Kansas f~r the pre-1997 period, and hence on the total <br />amount of those damages - we say in the low $20M, they say in the mid $50M. Trial before <br />Special Master Arthur Littleworth is set to resume in Pasadena, California, on June 17, 2002. <br />Despite our best efforts, settlement appears extremely unlikely at this point. <br /> <br />6. Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 126, Original. <br /> <br />The three states, joined by the federal government in its capacity as amicus curiae, have <br />made substantial progress in the settlement negotiations that started last fall. Based on that <br />progress, the Special Master has granted additional time for the discussions to continue. He has <br />stayed all litigation activities (with the exception ofthe completion of some document <br />production) until December 15, 2002. The Special Master has also ordered that "All discussions, <br />documents, pleadings, working papers, communications, and all other matters that are a part of <br />or that describe the ongoing settlement process in this litigation shall be kept strictly confidential <br />.and shall not be disclosed by the parties, the amicus United States or their attorneys." The <br />Board may wish to discuss in executive session the issues addressed and the status of the <br />confidential mediation. <br /> <br />. <br />