Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 4 <br /> <br />t' <br />o' <br /> <br />v- <br /> <br />Discussion: See discussion for Division 3 cases for general background. The Board may wish <br />to discuss the substance of the settlement proposals and settlement discussions to date in more .- <br />detail in executive session. . <br /> <br />6. Forest Service Reserved Rights Cases, Case Nos. W-1l46-73 et aI., Water Division 7. <br /> <br />Issue: Is the U. S. Forest Service entitled to reserved rights for instream flows for <br />channel maintenance purposes? <br /> <br />Decision: Technical representatives of the Forest Service, the State, and the Southwest <br />Water Conservation District continue to work on assessing streams in the forests to determine <br />both Forest Service and water user needs and to see if the two can be reconciled. The parties' <br /> <br />negotiation team met on February 22nd to assess progress so far. Another negotiating meeting is <br />to be scheduled in June. to agree on the technical work for the coming field season. The <br />Forest Service has come up with a different method to evaluate fish habitat needs and <br />would like Board staff to participate in the process. The Board may wish to discuss this <br />proposal and its effect 011 the settlement discussions in executive session. <br /> <br />Discussion: See discussion for Divisions 2 and 3 cases for general background. It is still too <br />early in the process to assess whether settlement is likely in this division. <br /> <br />7. Kansas v. Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 105, Original. <br /> <br />Issue: <br />Compact? <br /> <br />Decision: Pending. <br /> <br />Discussion: This case has been in litigation since Kansas sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme <br />Court in 1985, alleging that Colorado had violated the Arkansas River Compact. Special Master <br />Arthur Littleworth dismissed two of Kansas' three claims - involving Trinidad Reservoir and the <br />Pueblo Reservoir winter storage program - but found that post-compact well pumping had <br />violated the Compact. and the Court accepted the Master's findings. The remedy phase of the <br />trial was completed on January 28th. Kansas reduced its claim from $78M to $62M, a figure that <br />includes prejudgment interest. which we do not think is appropriate. Kansas' claim in 1998 <br />dollars (adjusted for inflation, but with no interest) totals $21M. By comparison, our evidence in <br />1998 dollars indicates a much lower damage award. Different assumptions by Colorado and <br />Kansas result in vastly different amounts of damages. The issue has now been fully briefed <br />and we expect the Master to issue a draft report on damages and schedule oral argument <br />sometime this summer.. We expect the Master to issue a final report on damages in September, <br />after which the states will have an opportunity to file exceptions with the U.S. Supreme Court. <br />Several issues still remain to be tried: whether Colorado was in compliance in 1997,98, and 99 <br />and how future compliance should be determined. <br /> <br />What is the proper remedy for Colorado's past violation of the Arkansas River <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br />