BOARD01270

• Board Meeting Date: 9/13/2005
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

"

caused in part by increased forest density the proposal, the Governance Committee will
continue to pursue the issue.

.

Finally, the program is at a stage where all parties need to evaluate the pros and cons of
committing to it. The Major Water Users who will fund the program through SPWRAP
(Denver, Aurora and Northern) met on August 19 to discuss the merits of the program. They
concluded that the pros outweighed the cons and committed to continued support of
SPWRAP. The Extended Colorado Team will probably have a similar meeting sometime in
early September.

8. Rio Grande Well Controversy.

The case is moving forward through discovery and expert disclosures. The State and the
other supporters of the Rules filed a motion for partial Summary Judgment on the
constitutionality of the Rules and SB 04-222 to which the opposers have responded. The
reply is due September 13. The State and supporters also filed 14 expert disclosures/reports
on August 3. Opposers' expert disclosures/reports are due October 2.

9. Ground Water Rieht for Great Sand Dunes National Park. 2004 CW 35.

The United States filed a Motion to Re-Refer the matter from the Referee to the District
Court. The Motion is pending but should be granted soon.

.

10. Pioneer and Laird Ditch Petition. [new)

The Pioneer Irrigation District and certain owners of the Laird Ditch have filed a Petition
with the Ground Water Commission demanding that the Commission shut off as many wells
in the Republican River Basin as necessary to increase stream flows so that each ditch can
take its full decreed amount. The petition has been sent to the Ground Water Commission
and will proceed as any other petition. Therefore, the Water Unit will provide updates to the
CWCB in the future.

11. Conseios de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. Norton. [new)

On July 19, 2005, C.D.E.M., a Mexicali non-profit economic development group, filed a
class-action suit against the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation,
challenging the project to line the All-American Canal. The water to be saved was
earmarked for the San Luis Rey Indian Tribes in California. C.D.E.M. was joined by two
U.S. environmental groups. The complaint has eight counts: (I) unconstitutional deprivation
of Mexican water users right to use seepage from the canal; (2) constitutional tort by
deprivation of use of seepage water; (3) that Mexican water users are entitled to equitable
apportionment of the seepage water; (4) that Interior is estopped from lining the canal
because it has allowed development ofthe infrastructure and economy in Mexicali that is
dependent upon the seepage.; (5) NEPA violations; (6) Endangered Species Act violations; .
(7) unlawful take of migratory bird species; and (8) violation of a provision of the San Luis

4