BOARD01617

• Board Meeting Date: 5/19/2003
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Each of the topics listed above were completed on an individual basis by tl1e consultant and at tl1e end
of the project combined together in one report. We can provide copies oftl1e report on CD-Rom for
anyone who is interested.

Kansas v. Colorado Decision: Early in December tl1e Special Master announced his decision tl1at the
amount of damages to which Kansas was entitled for depletions during the period 1950--1995 should
be calculated consistent with Colorado's methodology and detennined that Colorado's current
obligation is about $28 million, not the $50+ million that Kansas was most recently claiming. '

The Master's determination can be reviewed by the US Supreme Court, but so far the Court has upheld
most of his decisions, thus Colorado appears to have achieved a major victory in terms of the potential
liability as Kansas' original damage claims approached $300 million. Closing briefs were filed at the
end of February.

Of significance is that Kansas recommends that the H-I model be applied annually to determine
compact compliance, that the 1996 Use Rules be supplemented with the requirement that an additional
amount of water equal to 15% of the pumping be delivered to the Offset Account and that a River
Master be appointed to resolve disputes with respect to the impfementation of the Court's decree.
Colorado is opposed to a River Master and offers arbitration as an alternative. Also, Colorado would
like to see the H-I model used over a 10-year running period, beginning in 1997, to determine compact
compliance.

U.S. Forest Service - Federal Reserved Water Rightsiin Water Divisilm 2: In response to the state's
letter of December 21, 2001, the U.S. Forest Service proposed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice
their reserved water right claims for instream flow in Division 2. In July, the Board concurred with the
proposed stipulation and since then a number of other objectors have agreed to that stipulation. A
letter conveying our agreement to the stipulation with some clarifications was sent to the U.S. Forest
Service in August 2002.

On April 16 we received a draft stipulation and decree for frrefighting and administrative water rights
in Division 2 that totaled 110 acre feet and dismissed with prejudice all instream flow claims. We
have reviewed those documents and have authorized the AG to sign them.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Pueblo West Plpeline;and Pumping Station: This project proposes
to construct a new 20,850 foot long 36" pipeline, a new27.7 cfs (18 MGD) pump station, rehabilitate
and enlarge the existing diversion and river intake, and provide an emergency standby Generator. The
project would require amended easements across Reclaination property. Comments on the draft EA
are due May 24.

Colorado River Basin

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control- Triennial Review: The "2003 Triennial Review, Water
Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System'l was adopted and approved for submittal to the
sates and federal agencies at the Forum's October 200Z.

The Colorado WQCC considered the Review at its Jan; 14 meeting and adopted the revised Plan of
Implementation. Concurrence from EP A will complete this triennial review process. The Forum
documents in the Review its determination that the numeric criteria for TDS at the 3 lower basin
measuring points are still sufficient to meet the needs of basin water users and that the criteria are
achievable if the proposed Plan ofImplementation is carried out.

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control- Advisory Council Report: The Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Advisory Council is the federally cha~ered body that gives advice to the federal
agencies participating in the salinity control program. The major recommendations are for federal

.

.

.

11