Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />entry of a final decree. The damages have been paid: Colorado wire transferred . <br />$34,615,146.00 to the State of Kansas on April 29th, 2005. Following the status conference <br />on February and a further telephone conference on April 12, on April 19 the Special Master <br />entered an order: (1) approving a joint schedule for expert discussions to resolve the <br />remaining technical issues; (2) requiring the states to develop procedures for technical <br />arbitration of any such issues not resolved by September 12,2005; (3) holding that the expert <br />discussions are not confidential settlement discussions; and (4) announcing that "the goal is <br />to enter a decree by the end ofthis calendar year." Kansas is to produce the first draft of a <br />proposed decree, in part because it insists that the H-I model must be "documented" in the <br />decree, and up until now there has never been complete documentation of the model <br /> <br />3. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement, Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F & <br />76J, 02-CW-85, & 02-CW-86. <br /> <br />These cases involve conforming the Tribes' water rights, settled through consent decrees <br />in 1991, to the final configuration of the Animas-La Plata Project. The state has filed <br />pleadings in support ofthe applications. Citizens' Progressive Alliance is the only active <br />objector. The water judge has ruled on a number oflegal motions, striking or denying many <br />of CP A's legal contentions. He recently denied motions for summary judgment filed by both <br />sides, setting the stage for discovery. We are still awaiting entry of a case management <br />order, which will set rules and time frames for discovery. <br /> <br />4. Black Canvon of the Gunnison National Park Reserved Rie:hts Case. No. W -437. <br />Water Division 4. ' <br /> <br />The state water court case remains stayed. The Colorado Supreme Court issued its <br />opinion on our petition for review of the water court's stay order on November 8, refusing to <br />lift the water court's stay. That means we will have to await resolution of the environmental <br />objectors' federal action before quantification can proceed in state water court. <br />In the federal action, all parties will file opening briefs for judicial review of the United <br />States' actions in May. All briefing should be finished by the end ofthis summer. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. Trout Unlimited v. Department of Ae:riculture. <br /> <br />Last spring, the federal district court for Colorado ruled against the Forest Service, <br />Colorado, Greeley and Water Supply & Storage Co. in this case. The case arose from Trout <br />Unlimited's challenge to the FS decision not to impose bypass flows on Long Draw <br />Reservoir, located at the headwaters of the Cache la Poudre River. On cross motions for <br />summary judgment, the judge ruled against TU on most of its challenges, but nevertheless <br />found that the FS decision to allow 1.2 miles of stream to be dewatered was arbitrary and <br />capricious and a violation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). We <br />had joined with the water users in arguing that the FS could not impose bypass flows under <br />FLPMA, because of the potential for disruption of hundreds of water diversion and storage <br />structures located on national forest lands. In conjunction with Greeley and Water Supply <br />and Storage Company, we filed a notice of appeal on August 18th. Shortly afterward, the <br />Forest Service and then Trout Unlimited also filed appeals, which were consolidated for . <br /> <br />2 <br />