BOARD00936

• Board Meeting Date: 1/25/2005
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Kansas v Colorado -- Litigation Account Activities: Weare funding a number of activities related to .
the ongoing litigation with Kansas over the Arkansas River Compact from the Litigation Account ofthe
Construction Fund. The following is quick update:

. Completed first year ofthree-year study of irrigation monitoring with Colorado State University
(CSU) and begun purchasing of weather station enhancements. We will be receiving the initial
status report on this activity within the next month and then meet with the CSU research team to
finalize plans for the 2005 irrigation season.

. Assigned initial tasks to engineering consultants who will review modifications to the HI Model
and serve as expert witnesses in the concluding phase of the case.

. Developed a plan to have CSU build two Iysimeters at its Rocky Ford Research Farm. Outside
peer review ofthe preliminary design drawings and plan is completed and the results are being
incorporated into a final construction plan.

Staff will be closely monitoring progress and costs on these projects and we will provide you with
periodic updates.

Kansas v Colorado.- Payment of Judgment: Following the US Supreme Court's December decision
the Governor announced a plan to pay the approximately $32 million judgment against Colorado using
severance tax revenues in an expeditious manner. While this may impact the Board's receipt of funds
from the severance tax accounts this coming year and possibly in some future years, it will resolve one
area of future controversy with Kansas and allow Colorado to move ahead with future compliance efforts.
The parameters of the payment plan have been discussed with the JBC and must be authorized by the
~~~~ .

Kansas v Colorado-- Compliance Activities: Future compliance with Compact obligations is to be
determined using the HI Model developed by Kansas. The Court, in its December decision, affirmed the
Special Master's recommendation that Colorado's position that compliance with Stateline delivery
obligations can be most equitably determined on a 10 year running average basis. The 10-year
compliance period is based on the inability of the HI model to accurately predict Stateline depletions on
an annual basis, not to allow Colorado to average under and over deliveries, nor to compensate for the
various hydrologic conditions that can occur in the Basin.

Recent preliminary model runs by Colorado indicate that Colorado is falling behind on meeting its
obligation to fully augment depletions to usable Stateline flows for the period 1997 - 2006 by between
11,500 and 16,500 acre feet.

On Jan. 14 Division Engineer Steve Witte announced that Colorado has two years to make up a shortfall
of water deliveries at the Kansas state line. The shortfall was determined early this year by a 10-year
computer model tracking the impact of wells on flows from 1997 to 2003. During the 1985 Kansas v.
Colorado U.S. Supreme Court case, finally resolved in December, the same model actually showed a
surplus from 1997 to 1999. The court ruled that a 10-year model- not the year-to-year model Kansas
wanted - should be used in accounting for deliveries. The model won't be complete until the end of2006,
but preliminary numbers show Colorado coming up short.

Witte said the problem is twofold:

1. The drought changed how some wells are used. In cases where wells are used to supplement
surface flows, augmentation amounts are lower. In 2002 and 2003, some of those wells became .
the only source of irrigation, which would require higher augmentation on a permanent basis.

16