Southeastern Colorado Water Activity Enterprise Minutes May 20 2004

Home Browse Search

4 SECWCD May 20, 2004 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Leonhardt said the State Engineer had just approved the SWSP for the Lake Fork Ranch, and included a condition to address the District's concern. W. Leonhardt said he had corresponded with Aurora's attorneys regarding the Rocky Ford revegetation efforts, noting several problems. Mr. Leonhardt told them he believes Southeastern would consent to Aurora's proposal for exempting acreage from revegetation if Aurora agrees to use an appropriate portion of the water thereby made available to satisfy its IGA obligations to Southeastern to provide 1,000 AF to a Softening Pool, and/ or to provide 750 AF/Y of yield from Case 99CW169. District staff are discussing this matter with Aurora. Mr. Leonhardt reported in Aurora's Rocky Ford Ditch exchange case (Case Nos. 99CW170), Aurora has filed its proposed Case Management Order in "Part A" of the case. Trial is to be held in June 2005. Southeastern entered a stipulation to settle that part of the case, and remains involved for the sole purpose of assuring that the final decree is no less protective of Southeastern's interests than the stipulated decree. The United States recently provided comments that call into question a few provisions that Southeastern requested, regarding Aurora's use of Fry-Ark facilities. In Southeastern's Division 2 diligence case (02CW37) for the Fryingpan Arkansas Project's East Slope water rights and structures Mr. Leonhardt reported that Judge Maes entered a decree on April 27, 2004. This decree continues Southeastern's conditional East Slope water rights through 2010, based on Southeastern's diligence in maintaining those rights since 1996, and makes absolute an additional right to 11,499 acre -feet for storage in Pueblo Reservoir. In Kansas v. Colorado, Mr. Leonhardt reported that Kansas filed a surreply brief in late April, in response to the United States' brief arguing that the Court should decline to appoint a river master, and should uphold Colorado's position on the amount of pre - judgment interest included in the award of damages. Dennis Montgomery informed legal counsel that the Supreme Court Clerk still anticipates that oral argument likely will be scheduled for early October, when the Court's new term begins. Regarding the Arkansas Groundwater Users Association (AQUA) replacement plan for 2004, Mr. Leonhardt said legal counsel sent a letter to the State and Division Engineers expressing Southeastern's ongoing concerns, based on the Board's directions last month. In particular, the letter expressed concern regarding long -term injury to the Winter Water Storage Program if the State allows AGUA to continue winter diversions of the Excelsior Ditch in amounts far above the historical average. In the letter, legal counsel requested a meeting with the State and Division Engineers to discuss these issues. Mr. Miller recommended the Board approve the May 18 Draft IGA among the City of Pueblo, The City of Aurora, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, the City of Fountain, the City of Colorado Springs, and the Board of Water Works of Pueblo with the proposed changes of the new section VI, Regional Water Management Program and a new section 11t and authorize the District negotiation team to make the decision of accepting any new language changes. Mr. Simpson moved, seconded by Mr. Schrader, to approve Mr. M'iller's recommendation. The motion passed with Mrs. Orteg6n abstaining from the vote, and Mr. Tomky voting no. During the discussion the Board members requested that the negotiation team make one more effort to meet with the Colorado Canal minority stockholders to try a resolve some of their issues and concerns, and asked that legal counsel try and incorporate more definite language protecting the Colorado Canal minority stockholders. Mr. Miller said after discussions with Bob Hamilton, he recommends that Southeastern stipulate to a draft decree in one of the three Basalt Water Conservancy District cases in which Southeastern currently has an objection (No. 02CW078, Division 5). This case only seeks to add Green Mountain Reservoir as an additional source of augmentation water to the Basalt District's