Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />t' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />bypass flows imposed for endangered fish. The Board may wish to discuss this matter in <br />executive session. <br /> <br />8. Green Mountain Reservoir/Heeney landslide case. <br /> <br />On August 7, 2003, the Colorado River Water Conservation District and several other west- <br />slope eutities filed a petition against the Bureau of Reclamation in D.S, District Court for <br />Colorado to enforce the provisions of the Blue River Decree, The west slope petitioners are <br />seeking changes of Bureau of Reclamation policy concerning the interrelationships of the <br />replacement pool and power pool in Green Mountain Reservoir. <br /> <br />The court heard arguments on April 29 on the motions to dismiss the petition that had been <br />filed by the D.S, and Northern. The Court granted our motion to intervene on behalf of the <br />Division of Water Resources. The Court has yet to issue a written order explaining the terms of <br />intervention or ruling on the motions to dismiss, although it appears likely that some of the River <br />District's claims will go forward. <br /> <br />9. Application of City of Central (Case No. 92CWI68). <br /> <br />The CWCB participated in Central City's augmentation plan case to protect its ISF water <br />right on North Clear Creek in Gilpin County. Surprisingly, in January Water Judge Roger Klein <br />ruled that Central City need not include terms and conditions prohibiting out-of-priority <br />diversions by Central City when the ISF right is not being met. At the January Board meeting, <br />the Board voted to authorize our office to appeal the Water Court's ruling in this case, Central <br />City and Blackhawk subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which we opposed, <br /> <br />On April 2 Judge Klein issued an Amended Order re: Motion for Determination of Question <br />of Law, stating that while Central City may be diverting its water rights out-of-priority with <br />respect to calling rights, it is not diverting out-of-priority with respect to the CWCB's right, <br />because the CWCB's right is junior to Central City's rights and historically has been satisfied <br />due to a downstream senior call. The court held because the CWCB cannot call out Central <br />City's senior right, the CWCB cannot show injury to its vested right, and is not entitled to <br />protective terms and conditions in Central City's augmentation plan. The Attorney General's <br />Office filed a Notice of Appeal of this case with the Colorado Supreme Court on May 14. <br /> <br />10. mCD Application of Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District (Case No. <br />02CW038). <br /> <br />The State will file its Opening Brief in the Colorado Supreme Court on June 21. <br /> <br />11. South Platte Three-State Cooperative A!!reement. <br /> <br />This office has reviewed and concurs with the CWCB staff analysis of the draft <br />environmental impact statement on the Platte River Recovery Plan ("DEIS"), We advise that the <br />staff analysis be the basis for Colorado's comments on the DEIS, While the DEIS and the <br />recently released National Academy of Sciences report are both important, the key to the <br />implementation of the proposed program will be the FWS biological opinion ("BO"), The draft <br />BO will be released for public comment in July, <br /> <br />3 <br />