BOARD02037

• Board Meeting Date: 9/22/2003
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

I; I

I

.

.

.

Page 3

5, Three Forks Ranch v. City of Cheyenne, Wyoming State Engineer, and Wyoming
Water Development Commission, Civil Action No, 02-D-0398 (MJW) (D.C, Colo.)

On September 10, we filed an amicus brief with New Mexico and Utah in the 10th Circuit,
supporting the district court's dismissal of Three Forks' lawsuit against Wyoming and Cheyenne.
The Upper Colorado River Commission also joined in our amicus brief. The Colorado River
Water Conservation District previously had 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 vindicate 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 water court heard oral argument August 20 on CPA's various motions to
vacate the 1991 consent decrees for the tribes' project water rights. He promised an order by
October 1st, "hopefully earlier." CPA has filed more motions, specifically attacking the
Southwestern District's diligence filings. for its Animas-La Plata rights, and in conjunction with
the District, the Tribes, and the United States, we filed various motions to strike or dismiss the
most egregious of CPA's countless obfuscatory arguments.

7, Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, United States Supreme Court, No, 126, Original.

At the Republican River Compact AdministJ'ation meeting on August 21 and 22, the
Compact Administration formally adopted the ground water model developed by the three states.
The Special Master final report is at the printers, and will probably be filed with the Supreme
Court by the end of September. After that we expect the Supreme Court to dismiss the case.
Colorado then has through 2007 to ensure its uses, as partially determined by the model, are in
compliance with the Compact.

8, Black Canyon ofthe Gunnison National Park Reserved Rights Case, No, W-437, Water
Division 4.

As the Board is aware, the State and representatives of the National Park Service, Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service signed an agreement on April 2. In the pending
United States case, the United States moved to amend its application to claim only 300 cfs. Land
and Water Fund of the Rockies (now known as Western Resource Advocates), Trout Unlimited,
and others (collectively Environmental Opposers) filed a brief opposing the amendment as
prejudicial to them. In conjunction with the major water users, we filed a brief in support of the
US's motion for leave to amend. At the status conference on September 5, the Environmental
Opposers announced that they were filing federal court litigation challenging the April 2
agreement, and asked the water court to stay the quantification case in the meantime. In spite of
our vigorous objection to even considering a stay, the judge decided the motion to stay should be
briefed and set an expedited schedule (briefing will be completed by September 26). Weare
coordinating with other major water users and the United States in opposing the motion for stay.