Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />stipulated dismissal of the reserved rights claims in Divi~ion 2. The conditions were that the _ <br />dismissal be "with prejudice" - meaning that the claims ,could not be re-fiIed - and that the .. <br />United States should reimburse the costs ofthose objectors who qualify under the federal Equal <br />Access to Justice Act. The U.S. asked for estimates of parties' costs and attorney fees to inform <br />its response. It now has that information. We are waiting for Jim DuBois, the DOJ attorney <br />handling the case, to respond and hope to have his answ~r before the July Board meeting. <br /> <br />3, Forest Service Reserved Ril!hts Cases. Case Nos, W-1146-73 et al.. Water Division 7, <br /> <br />The Negotiations Team created a smaller Technical Committee ("TC") to try to reach <br />agreement and make recommendations for settlement on the Forest Service's claim points. The <br />TC has made progress on many streams. However, most recently, the Forest Service TC <br />representatives were supposed to propose a baseflow m~thodology for the Piedra River, but <br />failed to do so. The opposers will ask the U.S. to sched41e a Negotiations Team meeting to <br />discuss the situation. This case is on the agenda for eXecutive session to discuss litigation <br />strategy. <br /> <br />4, Kansas v, Colorado. United States Supreme Coun. No, 105. Oril!inal, <br /> <br />The trial on 1997-99 compact compliance and futur\: compact compliance began in Pasadena <br />on June 24th. Hal Simpson and Bill Tyner testified the first week. There was a two week break, <br />with trial scheduled to resume on July 15th. <br /> <br />5, Golden Boat Chute case. appeal to Colorado Suqreme Court, <br /> <br />The Answer Brief on behalf of the CWCB and State Engineer as appellants and the answer <br />briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants' position were filed on June 6, 2002.] <br /> <br />6. Applications ofEal!le River Water and Sanitation District (Case No, 00CW259) (aka <br />Vail) and Town ofBreckenridl!e (Case No. 00C\}'281) <br /> <br />The water court entered decrees in these cases on J1)ne 5, 2002. The court found that the Vail <br />and Breckenridge structures divert and control the water, even though the Vail boat chute is <br />located within an instream flow. In the Breckenridge decree, the court held that the structures <br />create whitewater features at 100 cfs and granted up to :500 cfs, but denied rights for lower or <br />higher amounts. Thus, the court denied rights to waterifor the claimed months of April, <br />September and October because the applicant had claimed less than 100 cfs. The court granted <br />281 cfs in May-281; 500 cfs in June; 343 in July; and 205 cfs in August. In the Vail decree, the <br />court held that the structures create whitewater features at flows in excess of 30 cfs and granted <br />up to 400 cfs, but denied rights for lower or higher amQunts. Thus, the court granted water rights <br />of 54 cfs in March; 227 cfs in April; 400 cfs in May; 400 cfs in June; 400 cfs in July; 205 cfs in <br />August; 67 cfs in September; and 48 cfs in October. The court denied the piscatorial claims in <br />both applications. <br /> <br />After entry of the decree, Breckenridge moved the court to add language to al10w it to place a <br />call against upstream water rights junior to Breckenridge if that call will provide 100 cfs or more <br />water at the whitewater park. The court has not ruled on that motion. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br />