BOARD02335

• Board Meeting Date: 3/24/2003
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Page 2

On December 2 the Special Master ruled in Colorado's favor on the amount of damages owed
for the 1950-94 period: $29 million, rather than the $53 million claimed by Kansas. Colorado
and Kansas reached a compromise on the amount of damages owed for 1995-96: $236,664 in
2002 dollars. This avoided substantially extending the trial, which concluded on January 17.
Post trial briefs have been filed and by late spring or early summer the Special Master will issue
his report on 1997-99 compact compliance and the very important issues surrounding future
compliance. The states will then file any exceptions to the report, and the U.S. Supreme Court
will consider the case and most likely hear oral argument during their fall 2003 term.

4. Applications of Eal!;le River Water and Sanitation District (Case No. 00CW259) (aka
Vail) and Town of Breckenridge (Case No. 00CW281).

Opening Briefs for the state parties on the appeal of these cases were filed on January 17,
2003. The appellees filed their answer briefs on February 18th and the state parties filed their
reply briefs on March 17th. ~. Df ~ ~& .n--.~~~ vu.:tt.L
. ~ htvN ~-t:h-. fh,'i: ~ ~~
5. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow'v. 'lteys, No. 99 CV 1320, US District Cour(rii;t~ict of
New Mexico.

Color.ado and several other states filed amicus curiae briefs to support the State of New
Mexico in the appeal of the federal district court'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. The Court appeared to understand that an opinion was
needed before the start of the irrigation season, March 1. However, we're still waiting.
Meanwhile, the USFWS released the Final Middle Rio Grande Biological Opinion on March
17th. The final BO is consistent with the draft; the action area is limited to New Mexico and
there are no RPAs or other proposals regarding either the Closed Basin Project or Platoro
Reservoir.

6. Rio Grande Compact.

The indexed flow of the Rio Grande at Del Norte fell below 200,000 acre-feet for the first
time in recorded history. The compact does not explicitly state how Colorado's delivery
obligation is to be determined in this situation. The Rio Grande Water Users Association
originally argued that there should be no delivery obligation, but New Mexico and Texas
rejected that. Now the RGWUA has accepted the use of a prorated scheduled delivery for the
Rio Grande, and a straight-line relationship will be applied with a scheduled delivery of30% of
the Del Norte index flow. Bill Paddock, attorney for the RGWUA, has proposed that the
compact commission adopt a resolution (drafted by Paddock) clarifYing that this was a one-time
solution and wil1 have no precedential value. The annual meeting is scheduled for March 27th.

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

The hearing on the various motions to dismiss was held on January 10, 2003. These motions
include the motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff s lack of standing that was supported by an
amicus brief from the Upper Colorado River Commission. U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel
issued a written decision on February 28th. Judge Daniel dismissed the case in its entirety on