BOARD00408

• Board Meeting Date: 5/21/2001
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

.

9

Page 7

9. Animas-La Plata Project.

Issue: Will legislation authorizing cO!lstrnction ofthe Animas-La Plata Project and
finally settling the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims on the Animas and La Plata Rivers be
enacted this session?

Decision: Yes!

Discussion: In 1986, Colorado entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by
Congress in 1988, thai resolved the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims in Water Division 7. Part
oflhat settlement is contingent upon construction ofthe Animas-La Plata Project. The
settlement provides that if the project is not completed by January 1,2000 - which of course it
wasn't - the Tribes have five years to commence litigation of their claims from the Animas and
La Plata rivers. In 1998, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt proposed what has been called
,
Animas-La Plata Ultra Lite .- a project limited to Indian and M&I uses, Despite this blow to the
hopes of irrigators on the La Plata, the Tribes and water users put forward a proposal very similar
to the Administration's, which Rep. McInnis incorporated into proposed legislation - H.R. 3 I 12.
Sen, Campbell introduced S. 2508, cosponsored by Sen. Allard. The State, tribes, water users,
congressional staff, and representatives of the Administration resolved their differences relating
to environmental sufficiency language, delinking from additional project facilities, and
repayment by non. Indians and the language chl1Ilges were incorporated into Sen. Campbell's bill,
S. 2508, which passed the Senate by an 85-5 vote on October 25th. The legislation passed the
House as a rider to an appropriations bill. This was a real team effort on Colorado's part. Our
delegation is now working.to obtain an adeqllate appropriation to move forward on
scbedule and we will be supporting tbis effort.

10. Golden Boat Cbute Iiti2ation, 98CW448, Division 1.

Issue: Whether the court should grant an application for recreation flows up to 1000 cfs.

Decision: Trial was held in Greeley on MlIfch 12-15 and concluded May 10.

Discussion: CWCB finisbed its case witb a closing argument May 10. Tbe points made in
closing were: (1) tbat tbe Fort Collins case was bad law and sbould not be followed; (2) tbat
Golden bad not satisfied tbe Ft. Collins test because it failed to demonstrate control wben
the flow of the stream exceeded 30 c.r.s., since the structures were overtopped at tbat level;
(3) tbat even if control bad been demonstrated, Golden bad failed to prove tbat tbe amount
of water claimed was reasonable and appropriate for the boating use sougbt; and (4) tbat
tbe water was not diverted by a reasonably efficient structure. .

Tbe court took the case under advisement and will most likely issue a decision in early fall.