Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />legal issues (a state stream adjudication action). The District Court, however, did not articulate <br />why it decided to dismiss the action rather than stay it. For that reason alone, the lOth Circuit <br />court vacated the dismissal and remanded the action to the district court with instructions to <br />consider the propriety of a stay rather than a dismissal. <br /> <br />11. Three Forks Ranch v. City of Cheyenne, et al. <br /> <br />Three Forks Ranch, which straddles the Colorado-Wyoming state line, filed an action against <br />the City of Cheyenne, the Wyoming State Engineer, and the Wyoming Water Development <br />Commission in the Federal District Court for Colorado. Three Forks alleges that Cheyenne's <br />project that exports water from the Little Snake River basin to the North Platte River basin <br />violates the Upper Colorado River Compact and Wyoming state law. The Wyoming officials <br />and the City have moved to dismiss the case on various grounds, including sovereign immunity, <br />lack of standing, and failure to join indispensable parties (the other compacting states). The <br />Colorado State Engineer, CWCB, and our office are investigating Three Forks' compact <br />allegations, and will be meeting with Wyoming officials to discuss them in the next few weeks. <br />At the same time, we are concerned about the precedent of a water user in one state (although <br />Three Forks is a Wyoming corporation, its water rights are in Colorado) suing state officials <br />and water users in another state to enforce an interstate compact. The Board may wish to <br />discuss this case in executive session. <br /> <br />AGFile: <br /> <br />P:\NR\NRHANNFZ\CWCB\AGREPORTOI-23-02.DOC <br />