Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />Reservoir and raise concerns about flooding and the effect on the yield of the Aspinall Unit, as <br />well as about whether those flows are justified under the purposes ofthe Monument (now Park). <br />We filed a statement of opposition on behalf of the Board, State Engineer, and Division of <br />Wildlife. The final count on SOPs filed is over 380. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The State of Colorado parties, the United States, arid fourteen other obj ectors filed a joint <br />motion to confirm that venue is proper in Water Division 4. The Colorado Supreme Court <br />issued a one-page order denying the joint motion to! clarify venue. Here is its reason: "If <br />an administrative assignment made by his court is no longer appropriate, a request for <br />reassignment should be made by the Water Court to the Chief Justice," However, the <br />order doesn't say which water court! Hello!?!? In an effort to resolve the venue limbo <br />severalobjector attorneys spoke to Judge Patrick (Water Div. 4), who has reportedly <br />written a letter to the Supreme Court seeking clarification. <br /> <br />Weare conferring with objectors about condition~ we would require for agreeing to a stay <br />requested by the United States. The water users waJ\.t to set up a negotiating team to <br />participate in settlement negotiations (assuming they occur). The team would include <br />water users from both the east and west slopes. We agreed that negotiations will also have <br />to include the environmental groups who filed statements of opposition, but that their <br />interests are probably too different from ours to be on the same team. Wendy Weiss has <br />circulated a proposed joint defense confidentiality agreement for participants to sign. The <br />Board may wish to discuss in executive session a list of conditions that the Board might seek to . <br />impose in return for agreeing to a stay of proceediligs requested by the United States. <br /> <br />2. Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. No. 96- WY -2686-WD. <br /> <br />Issue: Did the U.S. Forest Service act arbitrarily and capriciously when it signed the <br />Joint Operations Plan for Longdraw Reservoir without requiring by-pass flows? <br /> <br />Discussion: Fully briefed. Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />3. Nebraska v. Wyoming, United States Supreme Court, No. 108, Original. <br /> <br />Issue: Has well pumping in Wyoming violated the existing Supreme Court decree that <br />apportions the North Platte River among Colorado"Wyoming, and Nebraska? Should the decree <br />be modified to add new injunctions against Wyomi)1g? <br /> <br />Discussion: The U.S. Supreme Court approve~ the settlement reached between Nebraska <br />and Wyoming and amended the equitable apportionment decree accordingly. This case is <br />finally OVER! . <br /> <br />. <br />