Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />issues involve: (1) whether Nebraska and Colorado have a Compact obligation to make Kansas' <br />entire main stem allocation available at Guide Rock, Nebraska; (2) whether, in order to recover <br />damages, a complaining state must show both overuse by another state and receipt by the <br />complaining state ofless than its allocation; (3) whether water use under the Compact should be <br />measured on a statewide or a sub-basin by sub-basin basis; and (4) whether overuse by Kansas in <br />sub-basins upstream of Nebraska should be set off against any shortage that Kansas suffered <br />downstream of Nebraska in that year. We are on a very tight schedule given the complexity of <br />the issues involved, with trial now set to begin June 15,2003. <br /> <br />7. Golden Boat Chute case, appeal to Colorado Supreme Court. <br /> <br />Our opening brief on behalf of the CWCB and State Engineer as appellants, and the briefs of. <br />amici curiae supporting appellants' position, are due February 7, 2002. <br /> <br />8. Sportsman's Ranch ("SPCUP") South l>ark Con.iunctive Use Project, 96CW14, <br />Division 1. <br /> <br />In its ruling on the post-trial motions, the Water Court denied the Applicant's requests to <br />reopen the record, and also determined that substantial portions of the Applicant's case were <br />frivolous and/or groundless, thus entitling the objectors to reimbursementoftheir attorneys' fees. <br />An appeal of the Water Court's dismissal has been filed with the Colorado Supreme Court. <br /> <br />9. [NEW] Empire Lod~e Homeowners' Association v. Moyer, 00SA211, Colorado <br />Supreme Court (Div. 2). <br /> <br />On December 17,2001, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in the Empire Lodge <br />case, holding that Empire Lodge HOA lacked standing in water court to claim injury from the <br />alleged enlargement of the Moyers' water right when Empire Lodge's own water diversions <br />were based upon a substitute supply plan approved by the State Engineer. Some people broadly <br />read this decision to invalidate substitute supply plans altogether, although the holding can also <br />be read more narrowly as affecting standing only. The State Engineer will file a motion for <br />reconsideration to seek clarification of the decision. (The CWCB was not a party in this case.) <br />In addition, the State Engineer and this office are working closely with water users on the South <br />Platte River to amend the South Platte Rules to address the issue of substitute supply plans. <br /> <br />10. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, No. 99 CV 1320, NM Federal District Court. <br />Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />11. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Norton, CIV. 99-870, 99-872, 99- <br />1445M/RLP (Consolidated), NM Federal District Court. <br /> <br />Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />12. Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia <br />(environmental ~roups' suit for violations ofESA relatin~ to Lower Colorado River <br />activities). <br /> <br />Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />AGFile: <br /> <br />P:\NRINRHANNFZ\CWCBIAGREPORTOI-23-02.DOC <br />