BOARD01852

• Board Meeting Date: 7/28/2003
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 2

discuss our last response. The Board members may wish to discuss litigation and settlement e
strategy on these cases with counsel in.executive session.

3. Kansas v. Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No. 105, Ori2inal.

Post-trial briefing is complete and we continue to wait for the Special Master's final report
on 1997-99 compact compliance and future cqmpliance. After Special Master LiUleworth issues
his report the states will file any exceptions toithe report, and the U.S. Supreme Court.will
consider the case and most likely hear oral argument early in 2004. In the meantime the two
states have stipulated as to damages for 1995 and 1996 --$ 236,664 in 2002 dollars, with
prejudgment interest running at 6% from January 1, 2003.

4. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, No. 99 CV 1320, US District Court, District of
New Mexico.

Colorado and several other states filed amicus curiae briefs to support the State of New
Mexico in the appeal of the federal district co\ut's ruling ordering the Bureau of Reclamation to
maintain a 50 cfs flow from whatever source they could find. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
heard oral arguments on January 14. On June'12, 2003 the lOth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
ruling upholding the district court. The C9urt ruled that the Bureau of Reclamation has
discretion to reduce contract deUveries, including deliveries brought into the basin by the
San Juan - Chama project, and to restrict diversions to meet its duties under the
Endangered Species Act. The State of New Mexico and other parties plan to file a Motion to
Reconsider this ruling and will ask for rehearipg .en banc( We believe that the United States will _
also ask for rehearing. The State of Coloradoiwill join an amicus brief with several other states .
supporting the request~ forrehearing en banc; New Mexico's congressiorialdelegation has' .
proposed legislation that would effeCtively overrule the 10th Circuit decision and speCifically
exempt San Juan - Chama water from being used for endangered species recovery. Negotiations
among the parties to the litigation also continue.

5. Three Forks Ranch v. City of Cheyenne, Wyomin2 State En2ineer, and Wyomin2
Water Development Commission, CiviliAction No. 02-D-0398 (MJW) (D.C. Colo.)

PlaintiffThree Forks Ranch has filed their brief in their 10lh Circuit appeal of the dismissal of
their lawsuit against Wyoming and Cheyenne: We are working with New Mexico and Utah, as
well as counsel for the Upper Colorado River Commission, to prepare an amicus brief supporting.
the district court's opinion. The Colorado River Water Conservation District has filed an amicus
brief asking for clarification of the district court's order "so that it does not impair the existing
ability of entities, other than the signatory states, to litigate the meaning of an interstate compact
that is implicated in a suit brought to vindica~e a vested property right."

6. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement, Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F &
76J, 02-CW-85, & 02-CW-86..

These cases involve conforming the decreed water rights to the final configuration of the
Animas-La.Plata Project. The state has filed pleadings in support ofthe applications. Citizens'
Progressive Alliance is the only active objector. CPA has filed a welter of motions and they
have been briefed. The court recently consolidated these cases with the diligence application for .