BOARD01445

• Board Meeting Date: 11/19/2001
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

9. Golden Boat Chute case, appeal to Colorado Supreme Court.

.

Page 6

Issue: Whether the Colorado Supreme Court should overturn the water court's
decision in this case. The Water Court granted Goldtin its entire requested appropriation for
up to 1000 cfs, including nighttime and winter uses. !

Discussion: The trial transcript is now expected to be completed at the end of
November 2001. Once the transcript is filed, the Opening Brief will be due 45 days
later. Weare working with a number of entities to encourage their participation in the
appeal as amicus curiae on behalf of the CWCB aJld the SEO.

10, Sportsman"'! Ranch ("SPCUP") South ParkC~mjunctive Use Project, 96CW14,
Division 1.

Issue: The application proposed a so-called conjunctive use project in South Park.
Applicant proposed to pump ground water to create a void in the aquifer, then divert surface
water into the aquifer for storage and later withdrawat The City of Aurora contracted with the
Applicant for use of the withdrawn water. On June 1, ]2001, the Water Court issued an Order
Dismissing Application, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 41(b)(li). The Court found that the groundwater
, model offered by Applicant was unrelia,ble, and therefore the Applicant could not meet its initial
burden. The Court also took issue with aspects of Applicant's surface water modeling.

Di~cussion: Post-trial motions were filed September 14. The main fight now is over costs and .
. a motion by objectors for attorneys' fees under Rule 1 i. No word yet on whether Applicant
. plans to appeal. In its post-trial motions Applicant s\lUght to introduce more evidence by way of
affidavit to support arguments that are very similar t9 those originally rejected by the trial court.
The Objectors including the state opposed this attempt to reopen the record, and a decision
on this issue is pending,

11. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, No. 99 CV 1320, NM Federal District Court.

Issue: Will water users on the upper and mi~dle Rio Grande be forced to by-pass flows
to keep the river bed wet and protect fish under the ,flndangered Species Act?
i
Discussion: Several environmental groups (DefeJil,ders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Forest
Guardians, Audubon Society, and the Southwest Eriviroumental Center) filed suit against the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. The federal agencies asserted in a biological
assessment that they have little discretion to make releases from federal reservoirs for the silvery
minnow and willow flycatcher, because of constraints by Compacts, federal law and existing
contracts. The environmental groups filed a motion for preliminary injunction in April to assure
that water remained flowing in the river through thr irrigation season.

The Court ordered mediation and issued a gag ~rder as to the negotiations. The parties were
able to negotiate a stipulation providing water to tlie minnow, using some of Albuquerque's San
Juan-Chama contract water by exchange, conserved water by the Middle Rio Grande .