Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District Minutes June 16 2005

Home Browse Search

SECWCD June 16, 2005 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Garden City, Dodge City, Kinsley, and Great Bend, Kansas with accompanying attenuation. Peak flows in western Kansas ranged from 130,000 to 174,000 cfs. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & PROJECTS REPORT: Mr. Reynolds reviewed and provided the Board copies of the following charts: • Water Sales, Storage and Surcharge Summary • If & When Contract Payments for 2005 • If & When Contracts History • If & When Storage Contract Space Mr. Reynolds noted the large rise in If & When contracted space since the drought of 2002. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT REPORT: V,7ster R6sum6 Report Mr. Hamilton reported on the March r6sum6, statements of opposition were filed in the Division 5 Water Court in the two Red Butte Ranch (Red Mountain Ditch) cases (05CW049 and 05CW050), as directed by the Board. Mr. Hamilton said in the April r6sum6s in Division 2 and Division 5, there were no cases that required District action. In the May r6sum6s in Division 2 and Division 5, there were not any cases that staff felt the District should investigate further. Allocation Committee Report Carl McClure, chairman of the Allocation Committee, reported the Allocation Committee met on June 7, and decided to recommend to the Board of Directors that no additional Project water be allocated at this time. Mr. McClure moved, seconded by Howard Miller, that a second Project water allocation not take ,,,lace in June and that the Allocation Committee meet in July if it appears that there may be water available to allocate. Motion unanimously carried. LEGAL REPORT: Mr. Leonhardt reported in the High Plains A &M and ISG cases on appeal, he participated in the oral arguments before the Colorado Supreme Court Tuesday, June 14, 2005. Legal counsel coordinated arguments with attorneys for the State and Division Engineers and CWCB, Colorado Springs, the Board of Water Works of Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. The Court held separate arguments in the consolidated High Plains cases and in the ISG case. The Objectors were allowed a total of 30 minutes in each session. Mr. Leonhardt's argument in the High Plains cases focused on the anti - speculation doctrine and the basis for the Water Court's entry of judgment dismissing High Plains' applications. In the ISG case, Mr. Leonhardt's argument addressed the facts and law supporting the Water Court's