BOARD00351

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2002
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 4

cause of action against another state (Wyoming). The Commission argues that the signatory .
states are the parties who can seek to enforce the interstate obligations created by of a compact.
Three Forks received permission to respond to the ami4us brief over the objection of Wyoming.
A hearing on the various motions to dismiss has been scheduled for October 16th and the court
(Judge Wiley Daniel) has said that he will rule from the bench.

Three Forks sought to conduct discovery with respect to meetings between Colorado and
Wyoming. Judge Daniel ruled that there will be no discovery before October 16th.

9, Costilla Creek Comnaet

At the annual Costilla Creek Compact Meeting on May 10,2002, the Compact
Commissioners voted to adopt and approve the current water master's operating manual for three
years. The operating manual was first used last year ahd gives detailed instructions on how the
water master will administer Costilla Creek.

Attorney Peter White, on behalf of Amigos Bravo~ and other environmental groups,
presented a study to the commission that purports to show that the Compact intended to limit on
filed delivery from Costilla Reservoir (or the entire Costilla system, the statement was not clear)
to 1.5 acre ft. per acre per year. Mr. White stated that ithe report shows that the Compact
. Commission is not operating the system in complianc\l with the Compact, and further, that he
expects the report to form the basis of a motion for summary judgment in a suit he will file
against the Compact Commission at some unspecified time in the future.

10, Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement. Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F &
76J.

In 1986, Colorado entered into a settlement agreement, approved by Congress in 1988, that
resolved the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims in Water Division 7. Settlement of the Tribes'
claims on the Animas and La Plata rivers was contingent upon construction of the Animas-La
Plata Project. The settlement provided that if the project was not completed by January 1,2000
_ which of course it wasn't - the Tribes had five year,s to resume litigation of their claims from
the Animas. and La Plata rivers. The Settlement Act was amended in 2000 to provide for a
down-sized, M&I-only project and to extend the deadlines for the project's completion and the
Tribes' decision. The United States, the Tribes, the State, and the Southwestern Water
Conservation District have initiated water court pro~eedings to amend the consent decrees
entered in1991 to conform to the 2000 Amendments. Project opponents in Colorado and New
Mexico have filed motions that seek to vacate the 1991 decrees and start over. The water
judge entered a scheduling order incorporating our recommendation that briefing on the
motions should be deferred until after proposed stipulations to amend the decrees have been
published and the time for filing statements of opposition has passed, so that the issues can be
addressed all at once, rather than piecemeal,

e

e