Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Discussion: Kansas filed an 'Original action against Nebraska in theUS. Supreme Court in <br />1998, alleging that Nebraska had violated the Republican River Compact by allowing post- <br />compact wells to consume more water than allowed under the'Compact. Nebraska filed a motion <br />to dismiss, claiming that no groundwater was allocated under the Compact. . Kansas argued that <br />the Compact includes both alluvial and .ogallala Aquifer groundwater. Colorado's positi'On was <br />that the Compact includes alluvial, but not Ogallala, groundwater. On January 28, Special <br />Master McKusick: issued a report recommending t'O the Court 1hat 1he Compact restricts the <br />compacting states' consumption of all ground water - alluvial and Ogallala - that depletes <br />streann flow in the Republican River Basin, The Supreme Court simply denied Nebraska's <br />motion to dismiss, without ruling on the alluvialJOgallala distinctiou. However, the Court's <br />ruling will "ave the practical effect of aHowing a trial on the impacts ofall groundwater <br />pulupi.lg. Although Kansas has not alleged a Compact violation by Colorado, the case could <br />affect Ogall<Va Aquifer water users in Colorado and 'OUT accounting obligations under the <br />Compact. Determining Ogallala impacts will require a complex technical trial. The Special <br />Master has scheduled a conference call for July 27 to set a status conference, which .Jte <br />indicated hf'd like to hold in late September. <br /> <br />8. Animas-La Plata Proiect. <br /> <br />Issue: Will legislation authorizing construction of the Animas-La Plata Project and <br />finally settling the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims on the Animas and La Plata Rivers be <br />enacted this session? <br /> <br />. Decision: Pending. <br /> <br />Discussion: In 1986, Colorado entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by <br />Congress in 1 (}88, that resolved the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims in Water Division 7, Part <br />of that settlement is contingent upon construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. The <br />settlement provides that if the project is not completed by January 1, 2000 - which of course it <br />wasn't - the Tribes have five years to commence litigation of their claims from the Animas and <br />La Plata rivers. After years of delay, the project is again moving forward. In 19(}8, Secretary of <br />the Interior Babbitt proposed what has been called Animas-La Plata Ultra Lite -- a project <br />limited to Indian and M&I uses, Despite this blow ID the hopes of irrigators on the La Plata, the <br />Tribes and 'Vltter users put forward a proposal very similar t'O the Administration's, which Rep. <br />Mcinnis incorporated into proposed legislation - HR 3112. That bill and S. 2598, introduced <br />by Sen. Ca.,.pbelland cosponsored by Sen. Allard, are presently pending. Kent Holsinger <br />and Wendy Weiss testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in support of S. <br />2508. The State, tribes, water users, rongressional statT,andrepresentatives of the <br />Administratiolt have been trying to work out differences in a few critical areas relating to <br />environmeIltal.sufficiency language, delinking from additional project facilities, and <br />repayment by non-Indians. Discussious are going well. On July 14th, Redamation issued <br />its Final Supplemental EIS, reeommending.the downsized project. The water users and the <br />Tribes have made major concessions to satisfy environmental and budget concerns, and I wiH <br />continue to support 1he State/water user/tribal push fortegislationthat will finally and fairly <br />resolve the Tribes' claims without taking water away from non-Indian water users, <br /> <br />. <br />