BOARD01411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" 9 Page 6 and distinguishes other compacts. Further, the Master found that a complaining state need not show injury to obtain prospective Injunctive relleffrol!1 the Court. . Discussion: Kansas filed an original action against Nebraska in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998, alleging that Nebraska had violated the Republican River Compact by allowing post- compact wells to consume more water than allowed under the Compact. Nebraska filed a motion to dismiss. claiming that no groundwater was allocatdd under the Compact. Kansas argued that the Compact includes both alluvial and Ogallala AquIfer groundwater. Colorado's position was that the Compact includes alluvial, but not Ogallala, groundwater. On January 28th, Special Master McKusick issued a report recommending to the Court that the Compact restricts the compacting states' consumption of all ground water..;. alluvial and Ogallala - that depletes stream flow in the Republican River Basin. The Supreme Court simply denied Nebraska's 1110tion to dismiss, without ruling on the alluvialJOgailala distinction. However, the Court's ruling will have the practical effect of allowing a trial on the impacts of all groundwater pumping. Determining Ogallala impacts will require a complex teclmical trial with extensive modeling. Working closely with this office, the State Engineer has chosen and Is in the process of contracting with experts in the fields of; surface water hydrology, groundwater modeling, land use practices, and GIS services. . On July 31 st, Nebraska filed a cross-claim against Colorado, alleging overpumping and Compact violations. In our counterclaims against Nebraska mid cross-claim against Kansas, we alleged both downstream states are violating the Compact and injuring Colorado by their overpumping. The Special Master has set a very aggressive trial preparation schedule, with trial set to begin March 16,2003. The Master also assessed 1/3 ofhidees and costs against Colorado. The case could substantially affect Republican River basin and Ogallala Aquifer water users in Colorado. We now proceed to tbe discovery portion on the litigation. We will be filing initial disclosure statements and reviewing over 3400 Iblear feet of documents Identified by the United States. Tbe Special Master has submittedihis latest bill in the amount $159,383.19. Colorado's share amounts to a little over $53,000;00 . 9. Animas-La Plata Project. Issue: Will legislation authorizing construc~on of the Animas-La Plata Project and finally settling the Ute Tribes' reserVed rights claims' on the Animas and La Plata Rivers be enacted this session? ' Decision: Yesl Discussion: III 1986, Colorado entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by Congress in 1988, that resolved the Ute Tribes' reseJjVed rights claims in Water Division 7. Part of that settlement is cOlltingent upon constructi<)D o~the Animas-La Plata Project. The settlement provides that if the project is not cOlll.pleied by January I, 2000 - which of course it wasn't - the Tribes have five years to commence litIgation of their claims from the Animas and La Plata rivers. In 1998, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt proposed what has been called Animas-La Plata Ultra Lite -. a project limited to Indian and M&I uses. Despite this blow to the hopes of hTigators on the La Plata, the Tribes and water users put forward a proposal very similar to the Administration's, which Rep. McInnis incorporated into proposed legislation - H.R. 3112. .