10

• Board Meeting Date: 7/11/2007
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 2

3. Ground Water Right for Great Sand Dunes National Park, 2004 CW 35

The United States and supporting parties filed their expert disclosures December 29, 2006.
Opposers expert disclosures are due April 6, 2007.

4. Division 3 Confined Aquifer New Use Rules

Cotton Creek Circles filed an appeal in the Colorado Supreme Court of the decision approving
the Rules, and filed a brief in opposition to all Proponents' bills of costs.

5. Kansas v. Colorado (No. 105 Original)

In late June, 2007, Special Master Littleworth issued three additional orders resolving disputed
issues concerning the final Decree. Colorado prevailed on all three issues: (1) There will
continue to be a 100,000 acre foot monthly limit on the amount of Stateline flows that can be
considered "usable" for groundwater recharge in Kansas under the Compact. Kansas had
requested that no limit be decreed. (2) Any future disputes re: changing the H- I Model code to
reflect new sources of replacement water (for groundwater pumping) will be subject to the "fast
track" dispute resolution procedure, including binding arbitration. Kansas had requested that the
longer process, with non-binding arbitration, be used. (3) The Special Master will not attempt to
formulate a detailed standard for recalibrations of the model, as Kansas had requested, but the
Decree will require that the model be recalibrated as necessary to "produce the most reliable
estimates" of depletions/accretions to usable Stateline flow.

Negotiations with Kansas continue on a few remaining technical issues. Special J\;(aster
Littleworth intends to file his Final Report and recommended Decree with the Supreme Court by
late summer or early fall.

WATER RIGHTS MATTER

6. Supreme Court Appeal, Case No. 06SA303

Appeal of Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Case No. 03CW78, District Court, Water
Division 5: The Supreme Court heard oral argument regarding this appeal on June 14th. The
bench was quite engaged with all justices asking questions during the arguments. The justices
appeared to unders tand that the Authority had provided no proof of the actual mix of water uses
occurring today within the Authority's service areas. The Authority and the State continue to
discuss possible settlement, with the Authority requesting another settlement meeting in early
July. Prior to the oral argument, the State had submitted a proposed settlement offer to the
Authority in response to the Authority's last offer. The Authority has not yet responded to the
State's latest offer, which requires the Authority to annually estimate its actual mix of water uses
and the resulting out-of-priority depletions to the Eagle River.

7. Application for Water Rights of Copper Mountain, Inc., Case No. 01CW304:

This case remains on a trial track. The \Vater Court recently ruled on four ques tions of law
raised by the State and Division Engineers and the CWCR The Court ruled in favor of the State