Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />10. Rl CD Application of Upper Gunnison Water Conservancv District (Case No. <br />02CW038). <br /> <br />The Supreme Court granted the State's request for expedited review ofthis matter, and oral <br />argument in the Supreme Court was held on December 6, 2004. A decision could be <br />forthcoming at any time. <br /> <br />11. South Platte Three-State Cooperative Agreement. <br /> <br />The key to the implementation ofthe proposed program is the FWS biological opinion. The <br />states and the federal agencies are discussing how better to define the program for its evaluation <br />in the biological opinion. There are three main issues remaining in better defining the program: <br />I) the extent to which any changes will be allowed in the program without triggering reopening <br />of permits issued in reliance on the program; 2) the design ofthe Adaptive Management segment <br />of the program and whether it will be a compliance factor; and 3) defining the starting points of <br />the program. The State negotiation team is making progress on each issue and expects that the <br />Program definition will be complete by the end of March 2005. <br /> <br />The South Platte Water users expect to form a non-profit corporation (South Platte Water <br />Related Activities Program Inc., to be known as SPWRAP) in early March 2005. This entity <br />will fund much of the Colorado obligations under the Program. The State and SPWRAP will <br />need to negotiate an MOD to reflect the nature of the relationship between the entities. That <br />process should begin in March of 2005. <br /> <br />Some changes are being discussed on the North Platte element of the Program that may <br />require North Platte users to mitigate impacts caused by new population growth in Jackson <br />County on the North Platte instead of on the South Platte as previously proposed. CWCB will <br />initiate discussions with North Platte water users to get their input on the proposed changes <br />before the North Platte new depletions plan is finalized. <br /> <br />12. Rio Grande Well Controversy. The Engineers filed a motion for order regarding case <br />management and asked the Court to order as follows: <br />A. The Engineers will draft a proposed Modified Case Management Order in compliance <br />with Water Court Rule I I (c) (effective January 1,2005) and circulate such proposal to all <br />parties. <br />B. The Engineers will submit the proposed Modified Case Management Order to the <br />Water Court by February I, 2005, and shall identifY any areas of disagreement among the <br />parties. No discovery shall occur and disclosures shall not be required until the Modified Case <br />Management Order has been entered by the Court. <br />C. The Engineers will schedule a trial setting conference in the beginning of February, <br />2005. The Engineers will simultaneously set a Case Management Conference ifthere <br />are significant disputes among the parties regarding the proposed Modified Case Management <br />Order. <br />The Court entered the Order the following day. Alexandra Davis is currently drafting a <br />proposed CMO to circulate amongst the parties. <br /> <br />4 <br />