BOARD00268

• Board Meeting Date: 5/16/2006
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

h

2. Kansas v. Colorado. United States Supreme Court. No. 105, Original.

Special Master Arthur Littleworth issued an "Additional Order Regarding an Award of
Costs" on April1?, 2006. Significantly, he agreed with Colorado that Kansas' expert
witness fees are limited to $40 per day. He also agreed that Kansas' proposed 25% reduction
factor (to account for extra costs caused by the disruption in the liability phase of Kansas'
case and Kansas' replacement case) is too low, and that it should also reduce reporter and
Special Master costs, not just expert witness costs. He also agreed that only a portion, rather
than all, of Kansas' share of the Special Masters' fees and expenses should be real10cated to
Colorado. We have until May 17 to reach a final agreement on these remaining cost issues.
The Special Master held a conference caB with the States on May 1. He asked the States
to confer on a schedule to finalize the Judgment and Decree, including the Appendices, and
to resolve any remaining issues. On May 4, the States agreed to a proposed schedule - each
State wil1 submit a final Judgment and Decree on June 16, and the U.S. Solicitor General's
Office and each State wiB exchange their comments and responses by August 18.
The Engineers signed an Agreement on Limitation of Accumulation of Credits on April
25,2006, finally resolving Kansas' concerns about how transmountain return flows in wet
years wil1 be al10wed to offset depletions to usable stateline flow in the ten year accounting
using the H-I model.
Finally, the engineers from the two states are stil1 discussing problems that arose from the
updated calibration of the model for 1997-2004 - which resulted in additional depletions for.
Colorado. Colorado proposes specific changes to the observed diversion records in order to
remedy inappropriate changes in the model results. The States recently extended until
August 15,2006 the time for their experts to work to resolve the disputed issues.

.

.

3. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement. Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F &
76J, 02-CW-85. & 02-CW-86.

Trial was held in case 01CW54 (the diligence case) March 17-20,2006. The settlement
parties produced voluminous evidence of the Southwestern District's diligence on the A-LP
conditional water rights from 1995-200 I. Randy Seaholm testified on the Romer-Schoettler
process, which occurred at the beginning of the diligence period. The court partial1y granted
CPA's motion to compel, ruling that water availability prior to the diligence period may be
relevant in a diligence case even though its evidentiary weight may be limited. The State
produced its study of the historic and virgin flows on the Animas and La Plata rivers.
On March 21, the court heard oral argument concerning the Court.'s list often questions
in the other four cases. Trial in those cases, i.e., the tribal change applications and
modification of the consent decrees, is scheduled for August 7-12,2006.

.

2