BOARD00892

• Board Meeting Date: 5/19/2003
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 2

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

Post-trial briefing is complete and we are waiting for the Special Master's final report on
1997-99 compact compliance and future compliance. After Special Master Littleworth issues his
report the states will 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 tenn.

4. Applications of Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (Case No. OOCW259) (aka
Vail) and Town of Breckenridge (Case No. OOCW281).

Susan Schneider on behalf of the CWCB and State and Division Engineers presented oral
argument to the Colorado Supreme Court in these consolidated appeals on May 12. The Court
had previously advised the parties that they were refraining from ruling in the Golden boating
course appeal until after these appeals were at issue. We now await the Court's decisions in all
three of these pre-SB 02-216 boat chute cases.

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 ruling ordering the Bureau of Reclamation to
maintain a 50 cfs flow from whatever source they could find. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
heard oral arguments on January 14. The Court appeared to understand that an opinion was
needed before the start of the irrigation season, March 1. However, we're still waiting.

6. Rio Grande Compact.

The Bureau of Reclamation has begun calculating a daily evaporation rate from credit water
stored in Elephant Butte Reservoir and releasing the "evaporated" water into project storage
daily. The Compact Commissioners do not agree with this method (it will increase the total
evaporation on credit water vs. the usual end of year accounting) and do not believe the Bureau
has the right to unilaterally make this accounting decision. Hal Simpson plans to discuss this
issue with New Mexico State Engineer John D'Antonio to decide on a coordinated course of
action.

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.)

Plaintiff Three Forks Ranch filed a notice of appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals of
the dismissal of their lawsuit against Wyoming and Cheyenne. At afuture meeting the Board
may wish to consider whether to participate in this appeal as amicus curiae.

Although not within the 60 days requested, Wyoming's Attorney General and State Engineer
finally replied to the letter from Ken and Greg that accompanied the report of our investigation.
Despite some misunderstandings (probably because regime change at the Wyoming AG's office
has left a knowlcdge gap) we think the door is still open to eventual resolution of the problems
identified in our investigation. Wyoming said they need more time to respond. We expect to
work with CWCS staff and the State and Division Engineer on follow-up when they do respond.