Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Ken Maxey agreed with Vandiver's assessment of the existing situation in Colorado, adding that <br />they were more interested in some sort of new upstream storage, rather than a transfer of water <br />rights. Vandiver in turn encouraged the group to explore changing the way existing reservoirs in <br />New Mexico are operated as an easier way of squeezing additional water out of the system, <br />rather than trying for a completely new reservoir in Colorado. <br /> <br />8. Three Forks Ranch Y. City of Cheyenne, Wyominl:( State Enl:(ineer, and Wyominl:( <br />Water Development Commission, Civil Action No. 02-D-0398 (MJW) (D.C. Colo.) <br /> <br />The hearing on the yarious motions to dismiss preyiously scheduled for October 16, 2002 has <br />been rescheduled for January 10,2003 and the judge (U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel) has said <br />that he expects to rule from the bench. These motions include the motion to dismiss due to the <br />plaintiff s lack of standing that was supported by an amicus brief from the Upper Colorado River <br />Conunission. <br /> <br />By instruction of Ken Salazar and Greg Walcher, Wendy Weiss, Randy Seaholm, and Bob <br />Plaska conducted an investigation of the allegations by Three Forks Ranch concerning violations <br />by Cheyenne and Wyoming of the Upper Colorado River Compact. The Colorado investigators <br />prepared a draft report that has been reviewed by representatives ofthe Governor's office, the <br />Attorney General's office, and DNR. When the report has been made final it will be provided to <br />Wyoming and released to the public. The CWCB members may want to discuss this <br />investigation with counsel during executive session. <br /> <br />9. Southern Ute and Ute Monntain Ute Tribes' Settlement, Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F &. <br />76J. <br /> <br />US DOJ filed the necessary motions to amend and applications for change of water rights in <br />September 2002. A change of water right application was needed because the Ute Monntain Ute <br />Tribe's M&I use increased when the irrigation use was dropped. The state has filed pleadings in <br />support of the applications. Citizens' Progressiye Alliance is the only real objector. <br /> <br />10. South Platte Rule and Rel:(ulations. [NEW] <br /> <br />On May 31, 2002, the State Engineer proposed new Rules and Regulations for South Platte <br />Basin wells. The Rules were protested in water court by 40 parties, represented by 30 attorneys. <br /> <br />The parties have briefed two threshold legal issues, concerning the effective date of the Rules <br />and the legal authority of the State Engineer to approve replacement plans. Oral argument on <br />these motions will take place December 10 and Judge Hays has promised a ruling on December <br />20. <br /> <br />The Rules are set to take effect December 31, 2002 unless the water court rules that the <br />effectiye date must be delayed until all protests are resolved. The State Engineer estimates that <br />the trial will take 10 days, but the protesters have estimated the trial to take IZ weeks. <br /> <br />Because of the potential delay in the effective date caused by a lengthy trial, the State <br />Engineer in conjunction with South Platte well users groups is working with Senator Owen to <br />authorize an extension ofthe so-called "grandfather" provision included in last year's HB 02- <br />