BOARD00523

• Board Meeting Date: 1/22/2003
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 2

3. Kansas v. Colorado, United States Supreme CQurt, No. 105, Original.

On' December 2 the Special Master ruled in Color~do's favor on the amount of damages owed
for the 1950-94 period: $29 million, rather than the $53 million claimed by Kansas. Colorado
and Kansas reached a compromise on the amount of damages owed for 1995-96: $236,664 in
2002 dollars. This avoided substantially extending the trial, which concluded on January 17.
There will be some post-trial briefing, and then by lat!J spring or early summer the Special
Master will issue his report on 1997-99 compact compliance and the very important issues
surrounding future compliance. The states will then file any exceptions to the report, and the
U.S. Supreme Court will consider the case and most likely hear oral argument during their fall
2003 term.

.

4. Applications of Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (Case No. 00CW259) (aka
Vail) and Town of Breckenridge (Case No. 00CW281).

Opening Briefs for the state parties on the appeal of these cases were filed on January 17,
2003.

5. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, No. 99 CV 1320, US District Court, District of
New Mexico.

Colorado and several other states filed amicus curiae briefs to support the State of New
Mexico in the appeal of the federal district court's ruUng ordering the Bureau of Reclamation to
maintain a 50 cfs flow from whatever source they colild find. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
heard oral arguments on January 14. The Court appears to understand that an opinion is needed .
before the start of the irrigation season, March 1.

6. Rio Grande Compact.

The indexed flow of the Rio Grande at Del Nortefell below 200,000 acre-feet for the first
time in recorded history. The compact does not expl~cit1y state how Colorado's delivery
obligation is to be determined in this situation. The Rio Grande Water Users Association
originally argued that there should be no delivery obligation, but New Mexico and Texas
rejected that. Now the RGWUA has accepted the us~of a prorated scheduled delivery for the
Rio Grande, and a straight-line relationship will be applied with a scheduled delivery of30% of
the Del Norte index flow. Bill Paddock, attorney for!the RGWUA, has proposed that the
compact commission adopt a resolution (drafted by Baddock) clarifYing that this was a one-time
solution and will have no precedential value.

7. Three Forks Ranch v. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming State Engineer, and Wyoming
Water Development Commission, Civil Action! No. 02-D-0398 (MJW) (D.C. Colo.)
i
The hearing on the various rnotions to dismiss was held on January 10, 2003. These motions
include the motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff s latk of standing that was supported by an
amicus brief from the Upper Colorado River Commission. U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel did
not rule from the bench. We are awaiting his decision.

Ken Salazar and Greg Walcher asked Wendy W~iss, Randy Seaholm, and Bob Plaska to
conduct an investigation into the allegations by Three Forks Ranch concerning violations by

.