Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />a seat at the settlement table. The Southwestern District remains opposed to TV's participation . <br />and we see no reason to change our previous position.' The Board members may wish to discuss <br />litigation and seUlement strategy on these cases with: counsel in executive session, <br />I <br />I <br />3. Kansas v, Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No, 105, Original. <br /> <br />The Special Master released his fourth draft report on August 25th, which accepted <br />Colorado's position on virtually all the important issues: <br />. The amount of damages owed for the 1950-94 period was $29 million, rather than the $53 <br />million claimed by Kansas. The amount will be adjusted for pre-judgment interest from <br />1985 to the present. (Colorado and Kansas reaphed a compromise on the amount of <br />damages owed for 1995-96: $236,664 in 2002 dollars.) <br />. The State Engineer's administrative rules for ~ells brought Colorado into compliance for <br />the years 1997 through 1999, so no damages ro;e owed for that period. <br />. The methods Colorado proposed for calculating and measuring water usage for <br />administration in the future were approved, with the exception of the method for <br />calculating crop water use, where the Special Master recommended the Penman-Monteith <br />method Kansas favored. This will result in the calculation of more depletions from well <br />pumping. <br />. He rejected Kansas' request for appointment of a federal "river master" to supervise future <br />administration. Instead, he suggested that the Court retain jurisdiction "for a limited <br />period of time" to referee future disputes, if any. <br />Comments on the draft report are due by the end of September. After that, the Master will file . <br />the report, the states will file any exceptions to the report, and the U.S. Supreme Court will most <br />likely hear oral argument early in 2004. <br /> <br />4, Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v, Keys, No. 99 Cy 1320, US District Court, District of <br />New Mexico. <br /> <br />Colorado joined an Idaho amicus motion urging rehearing en banc of the 10th Circuit <br />decision, which had ruled that the Bureau of Reclaml!tion has discretion to reduce contract <br />deliveries, including deliveries brought into the basin by the San Juan-Chama project, and to <br />restrict diversions to meet its duties under the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs' response is <br />due September 18. New Mexico Governor Richardslin instituted negotiations and announced a <br />"settlement agreement" with the Plaintiffs early this month. The negotiations did not include the <br />federal government, however, and Reclamation C01llfllissioner Keys responded with a non- <br />committal statement praising Richardson for laying t\J.e foundation for future discussions. <br />Richardson then announced that further discussions Iiad been "temporarily postponed because <br />the time frame for reaching consensus was too tight Before pending federal legislation." The <br />"pending legislation" is a rider that Sen. Domenici of New Mexico has attached to an <br />appropriations bill that would effectively overrule the 10th Circuit decision and specifically <br />exempt San Juan-Chama water from being used for ~ndangered species recovery. It passed the <br />Senate floor September 11 and is off to a conference bommittee to work out some mildly <br />different language between the bills - that should be ?onelate September to early October. <br /> <br />. <br />