BOARD01101

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2001
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

you, (As a reminder, you can review a detailed memo about the issue that was provided to you in July
2000. This memo can still be reviewed on our Web sitie.)

Water Quality Consultation: In response to the Water Quality Control Commission's (WQCC) requee
for consultation, on July 3, Hal Simpson and I sent a letter to the WQCC commenting on the proposed
revisions to the water quality classifications, standards, and designations for multiple segments in the
San Juan and Dolores River Basins, the Gunnison and! Lower Dolores River Basins, and the Lower
Colorado River Basins (Regulation Nos. 34, 35, 37), ~ursuant to Section 25-8-104, C,R.S., we review
the proposed revisions, including the parties' preheari:p.g and rebuttal statements to evaluate potential
impacts on water rights, '

Except for concerns expressed by the Colorado River Water Conservation District and Mesa County
concerning potential inclusion of irrigation ditches, canals, and drains in stream classification and
standards, we found no significant water rights issues :raised by parties involved,

We believed the WQCD's response in its rebuttal statement, adequately address these concerns. "The
Division [WQCD] is not proposing that the classifica~ions and standards proposed for the natural
waterways should be applied to the man-made conveyances." Additionally, the Colorado Water Quality
Control Act specifically states that water in ditches and mari-made conveyance structures shall not be
classified,

As always, we urged that the WQCC to make sure that the proposed standards, classifications and
designations are scientifically-based, appropriate, and necessary for Colorado's water to protect all
beneficial uses, '

Stream Gaging Activities: As a result ofthe May 3 f:;treamgaging Symposium and ongoing
coordination efforts with the DWR and USGS, we are working closely with these agencies on satellite
telemetry upgrades; low and high flow warning syste;ms; research projects to develop winter low flow A
gaging technologies utilizing dilution techniques; and flood hardening criteria, We are continuing to .,
provide funding for statewide gaging programs utilizing Severance Tax Operational Account funds and
the Construction Fund. Weare also in the process of finalizing an MOU with DWR for disbursement of
funds for the satellite linked monitoring system. Weare also exploring additional monitoring with the
USGS on a state/federal cost-share, with the state paying 65 percent..

Arkansas Q.iv~r Basin Issnes

Kansas v. Colorado Damages: On June 11 the U.S, Supreme Court issued its opinion on objections
raised by both Colorado and Kansas to the Special Master's findings regarding money damages owed to
Kansas for depletions caused by post compact well pumping. In a divided opinion the Court determined
that the interest rates used by the Special Master were correct, but that pre-judgement interest should not
be assessed against Colorado for the period 1969-1985. Kansas had argued that pre-judgement interest
should run from 1950, when well pumping first cau~ed material depletions of Stateline flow.

The full opinion is available at: htto://caselaw.lo.nbdlaw.comlcl!i-
bin/l!etcase.ol?court=US&navbv=case&vol=OOO&invol=l 050RlG.

It is estimated, pending receipt from Kansas of a damage calculation consistent with the Court's opinion,
that Colorado will owe approximately $23 million for the period 1950-1995. Colorado is now preparing
for the next phase oflitigation that involves Comp~t compliance efforts since 1995, and future
compliance procedures,

On July 6, the JBC met in executive session with K~n Salazar and David Robbins to begin planning for
the expeditious satisfaction of the impending judgelnent. The JBC took no action but requested e
additional information on the impacts of the Tabor Amendment on different payment options that may
be proposed to Kansas,

6