Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />I, <br /> <br />throughout the west with US Department of Interior funding. There has been no new action on <br />the legislation in the last 2 months. Staff continues to work with the Coalition on implementing <br />inventory efforts utilizing the $50,000 of cost share funds provided by the Board. Inventories <br />will be conducted this year on the Purgatoire, Yampa, and Colorado mainstem this summer. We <br />have met with the Arkansas River Conservancy District, which maintains the levee structure at <br />the City of Las Animas, and they will be pursuing a US Army Corps of Engineers study of an <br />environmental restoration on the Arkansas in the reach protected by the levee focusing on <br />tamarisk removal. There may be a further role for the Board under our flood mitigation <br />responsibilities. A similar Corps project is being pursued by the City of Grand Junction in Mesa <br />County in cooperation with the Tamarisk Coalition. Staff also provided a letter of support to the <br />group on the Purgatoire who are applying for funding of a tamarisk control project through the <br />National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Finally, staffwil1 be seeking additional discussions with <br />EDO on coordination and definition of respective DNR agency roles in the Statewide tamarisk <br />control effort as presented in the DNR 10 Year Plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Arkansas River Basin <br /> <br />Kansas v. Colorado: <br /> <br />Litigation Schedule: On April 19, 2005 Special Master Littleworth issued an Order setting <br />forth his schedule and expectations for resolving the remaining technical disputes in the case_ <br />Basically all technical matters must be resolved through discussion of each state's experts or <br />be submitted to arbitration by September 12, 2005. Arbitration procedures are to be <br />established by the States, and if agreement can't be reached by September 12, the Master will . <br />decide. The States must also resolve any disagreements about Colorado's well measurement <br />rules based on the newly released USGS Phase 2 Study (pCC Study) or submit that issue to <br />the Master. The Master also instructed Kansas to prepare a proposed final decree, addressing <br />matters set forth by the Master, including HI model documentation, for review and comment <br />by Colorado, his stated goal being entry of a decree prior to the end of 2005. Morithly <br />progress reports to the Master are required; . 0 <br /> <br />Payment of Judgment: On April 28, the legislature passed and Governor Owens signed <br />SB05-226, which provides funds to make payments required by the Supreme Court under the <br />decision in Kansas v. Colorado. The bill authorizes payments to Kansas for damages and <br />establishes a structure for the payment of potential legal costs as follows: <br /> <br />. Creates the Kansas v. Colorado Plaintiffs Damages Payment Fund <br />. Authorizes the State Treasurer to transfer the following amounts into a Damages Payment <br />Fund: (1) $15,500,000 from the Severance Tax Operational Account; (2) $15,500,000 from <br />the Severance Tax Perpetual Base Account; and (3) $3,796,129 from the Local Govemment <br />Severance Tax Fund, a total of$34,976,129. <br />. Authorizes the Department of Law to expend from the Damages Payment Fund and <br />appropriates $34,796,129 to the Department of Law. <br />. Immediately after SB05-226 was signed the total funds were transferred to Kansas to <br />satisfy the damages portion of the Court's decision, prior to entry of a final judgment, <br />thereby preventing the accumulation of further interest on the damages award. - . <br />. Creates the Kansas v. Colorado Plaintiffs Legal Costs Fund, to pay litigation costs (not <br />attorney fees) to Kansas as may be negotiated by the states or subsequently ordered by the <br />Court. . <br /> <br />18 <br />