My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01024
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:57:16 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:48:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/27/2004
Description
Report of the Attorney General
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />3. Rio Grande Silverv Minnow v. Kevs. No. 99 CV 1320. US District Court. District' of <br />New Mexico. <br /> <br />Sen, Domenici's minnow rider to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill was <br />enacted, The rider prohibits the Bureau from taking water for the minnow, other than from <br />willing sellers; prohibits spending funds on importing San Juan,Chama water for the minnow's <br />benefit; and legislatively finds the current Biological Opinion to be legally sufficient. This <br />legislatively overruled the 10th Circuit, which had ruled that the Bureau has discretion to reduce <br />contract deliveries, including deliveries brought into the basin by the San Juan,Chama project, as <br />well as discretion to restrict diversions to meet its duties under the Endangered Species Act. As <br />a result, the lOth Circuit determined that the Silvery Minnow appeal was moot, vacated its <br />previous opinion, and dismissed the appeal- but did not vacate the District Court's order that <br />formed the basis for the appeal. New Mexico may ask the district court to vacate its previous <br />order, but the Domenici rider should take care of future problems in any case, <br /> <br />4. 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 in <br />1991, to the final configuration of the Animas,La Plata Project. The state has filed pleadings in <br />support of the applications. Citizens' Progressive Alliance is the only active objector. The judge <br />ruled against Citizens Progressive Alliance on four more motions in the past two months, A few <br />more motions are pending or promised, and are set for argument on March 5. <br /> <br />...... <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado. United States Supreme Court. No. 126. Original. . <br /> <br />Colorado has until the end of 2007 to ensure that its uses, as partially determined by the <br />model, are in compliance with the Compact and the Final Settlement Stipulation, Because the <br />model projects that Colorado uses will be a few thousand acre, feet over Colorado's allocation in <br />dry years, our office is assisting the State Engineer in working with local watcr uscrs and <br />legislators to develop compliance measures, We will meet with a work group consisting ofRep, <br />Greg Brophy, Sen, Mark Hillman, two ground water commissioners and one representative from <br />each ground water district in Wray on January 31. <br /> <br />6. Black Canvon of the Gunnison National Park Reserved Rights Case. No. WA37. Water <br />Division 4. <br />The state water court case remains stayed, In our petition to the Colorado Supreme Court for <br />review of the water court's stay order, the U,S, and the environmental opposers asked for and <br />received extensions for their response briefs, We will try to still file our reply by the original <br />mid, February date. In the environmental objectors' federal action, the environmental opposers <br />amended their federal complaint, adding another administrative claim and two new <br />environmental group plaintiffs, The United States responded with an amended motion to <br />dismiss. We (on behalf of the Board, the SEa, and Wildlife) moved to intervene and joined the <br />US motion to dismiss, as did the Colorado River Energy Distributors' Association (CREDA) and <br />the Colorado Farm Bureau, The Board members may wish to discuss these pending cases with <br />counsel in executive session. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.