BOARD01456

• Board Meeting Date: 7/23/2001
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 6

set to begin March 16, 2003. The Master also assessed:ll3 of his fees and costs against Colorado.
The case could substantially affect Republican River basin and Ogallala Aquifer water users in .
Colorado. Weare now in the discovery portion on the ,litigation. The Special Master has
submitted his latest bill in the amount $159,383.19. Colorado's share amounts to a little over
$53,000.00.

All three states have now filed initial disclosures and served interrogatories and document
production requests, and are nearing completion o{ their review of federal documents
related to the Republican River basin. The Special: Master held a pretrial conference in
Denver on May 30, 2001. He reaffirmed his earliet ruling on the binding nature of the
determinations made by the Republican River Co~pact Administration for the years 1959-
1994, even the unpublished calculations of the Adlllinistration's Engineering Committee.
These figures show that Colorado overused its allocation in one sub-basin in one year,
while Nebraska and Kansas have overused in many sub-basins in many years, and
Nebraska has overused its total allocation a number of times. Based on these figures,
Nebraska and Kansas have both stated that they are willing to stipulate with Colorado to a
mutual withdrawal of claims for the 1959-1994 petiod, and also for the pre-Administration
period of 1943 to 1958. We are still negotiating lal1guage for the proposed stipulations; the
Master has ordered them to be submitted by August 10. Kansas, however, is not willing to
stipulate with Nebraska for those periods. The Master has set a briefing schedule this fall
for issues of compact interpretation and affirmative defenses. The resolution of these issues
-- including whether overuse should be measured sub-basin by sub-basin or by total state
allocation, and whether the other states have a specific delivery obligation to Kansas at the
Guide Rock diversion - will further focus issues for trial. Meanwhile, the U.S.G.S. ground
water ofthe basin is still not ready, but we are ge~ring up our technical preparation as .
much as possible. .

8. Animas-La Plata Pro.iect.

Issue: Will legislation authorizing construction 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: Yes!

Discussion: In 1986, Colorado entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by
Congress in 1988, that resolved the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims in Water Division 7. Part
of that settlement is contingent upon construction ofthe Animas-La Plata Project. The
settlement provides that if the project is not completed 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 ~abbitt proposed what has been called
Animas-La Plata Ultra Lite -- a project limited to I~dian and M&I uses. Despite this blow to the
hopes of irrigators on the La Plata, the Tribes and *ater users put forward a proposal very similar
to the Administration's, which Rep. McInnis incorporated into proposed legislation - H.R. 3112.
Sen. Campbell introduced S. 2508, cosponsored by Sen. Allard. The State, tribes, water users,
congressional staff, and representatives of the Administration resolved their differences relating
to environmental sufficiency language, delinking from additional project facilities, and a
repayment by non-Indians and the language changes were incorporated into Sen. Campbell's bill, .