My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01488
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01488
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:02:25 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:56:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/24/2004
Description
Report of the Attorney General
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />"I <br />,. <br /> <br />') <br /> <br />3. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Kevs, No. 99 CV 1320. US District Court. District of . <br />New Mexico. <br /> <br />After the 10th Circuit mooted the appeal, the parties are now back before the District Court on <br />various motions to dismiss the case and motions to vacate the District Court's opinion. <br /> <br />4. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement. Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F & <br />76J, 02-CW-85, & 02-CW-86. <br /> <br />These cases involve conforming the Tribes' water rights, settled through consent decrees in <br />1991, to the final configuration of the Animas-La Plata Project. The state has filed pleadings in <br />support of the applications, Citizens' Progressive Alliance is the only active objector. The water <br />judge has now ruled on all but one of the pending legal motions, striking or denying many of <br />CPA's legal contentions, The disclosure and discovery phase will begin shortly. There is a <br />status conference set June 4, The Board members may wish to discuss these pending cases with <br />counsel in executive session. <br /> <br />5. Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Reserved Ri!!hts Case. No. W-437. Water <br />Division 4. <br /> <br />The state water court case remains stayed. Although no party requested it, the Colorado <br />Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for May 24 concerning our petition for review of <br />the water court's stay order. In the environmental objectors' federal action, the federal district <br />"Ollrt jllnge denied the T lnited StMe~' motion to di~mi~~, which we had joined The T lnited <br />States will now have to produce the administrative record by early July. The Board members . <br />may wish to discuss these pending cases with counsel in executive session. <br /> <br />6. CWCB ISF Application on Gnnnison River throu!!h the Black Canyon (Case No. <br />03CW265). <br /> <br />Nothing new to report. <br /> <br />7. Trout Unlimited v. Department of A!!riculture/Okano!!an County v. National Marine <br />Fisheries Service. <br /> <br />About two years after oral argument, the federal district court for Colorado ruled against the <br />Forest Service, Colorado, Greeley and Water Supply & Storage Co. in this case, The case arose <br />from Trout Unlimited's challenge to the FS decision not to impose bypass flows on Long Draw <br />Reservoir, located at the headwaters of the Cache la Poudre River. On cross motions for <br />summary judgment, the judge ruled against TU on most of its challenges, but nevertheless found <br />that the FS decision to allow 1,2 miles of stream to be dewatered was arbitrary and capricious <br />and a violation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). We had joined with <br />the water users in arguing that the FS could not impose bypass flows under FLPMA, because of <br />the potential for disruption of hundreds of water diversion and storage structures located on <br />national forest lands. Water Supply & Storage Co. moved to amend the order to address a <br />factual mistake, so the time for appeal will be delayed until the disposition of that motion, In the <br />related Okanogan County case, the U.S. Supreme Court just denied the petition for certiorari, <br />which means that there will be no further review of the 9th Circuit decision that upheld FLPMA <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.