Laserfiche WebLink
<br />but the Forest Scrvicc has not bccn rcccptivc to these requcsts. TIll' BOllrd 1//11.1' H'isll to <br />disCIISS IIlis item ill eXl'cllfil'e sl'ssioll. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. Kansas v. Colorado, United States Suprcme Court, No. 105, Orhdlllll. <br /> <br />Since the status conference 111 Pasadena on Septembcr 30. a number of issues have been <br />resolved. The Special Master's schcdulc for issuing a tlnal dccrcc has slippcd a month or <br />two -- he told thc states that he hopcd to havc a final report that is not subject to cxccptions <br />and is willing to take a littlc more time to complete the decrce and rcport if necessary. <br /> <br />Only one issue, the rcpresentation of the Graham watcr right, was arbitrated. On Dcecmber <br />12 the arbiter ruled that Colorado's proposal should be granted and 1286 acre-feet of <br />pumping from the Graham wells should be counted as in-priority diversions for the years <br />1977-1994 in thc II-Imodcl. <br /> <br />Thc Special Master issued two legal rulings that werc disappointing but not unexpected. <br />First, hc rulcd that the decrec should include some form of injunctive relief for Kansas. <br />Second, on the Issue of costs, he concluded that Kansas is the "prevailing party" and thus <br />entitlcd to costs, but also that thcrc needs to be a substantial adjustmcnt. He wanted Kansas <br />to respond to Colorado's case law arguing that cxpcrt witncss fccs wcre limited to $40/day <br />and limited to trial time. He again encouragcd the Statcs to try to rcach agrcement on costs. <br />Kansas submitted a partial itemization ofthc costs it is sceking, amounting to almost $9.8 <br />million, $8.5 million of which are cxpcrt costs. Colorado is to submit its proposal on the <br />24th. Given the position Kansas has taken, it is unlikely the states can reach agrccment. <br /> <br />Several issues are still being worked on. On Dcccmber 28, Kansas submitted a revised 162- <br />pagc draft of the judgmcnt and deerec. Colorado is to provide its comments by January 16. <br />The States' respective experts are working on the changcs to thc H-I model nccessary to <br />implement the agreements between thc Statcs and thc arbitrator's decision, so that the model <br />can produce tlnal 1997-2004 results. The Spccial Master allowcd thc cnginccrs until the end <br />of January. Colorado and Kansas have held scveral telephone conferences to discuss a limit <br />on credits for accretions, and Colorado has made a proposal for a reasonablc limit. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement, Case Nos. 7-W-1603-761? & <br />76J, 02-CW-85, & 02-CW-86. <br /> <br />These five cases are two applications to modify thc 1991 conscnt decrees to match the <br />final configuration of the Animas-La Plata Projcct (A-LP), two change applications for the <br />newly-configured tribal water rights, and one diligence application for the full original A-LP <br />conditional water right. Citizens' Progressive Alliance (CPA) is the opponent in all five <br />cases, all of which are in pre-trial discovery. <br /> <br />CPA and its attorney Alison "Sunny" Maynard continue to oppose the Animas-La Plata <br />Project (A-LP). Trial is sct for April, 2006, on the diligence application for the A-LP water <br />right. We are currently awaiting Ms. Maynard's late reply on her late cross-motion for <br />summary judgment (which argues that the change applications are baITed by the recent High . <br />Plains dccision). The judge recently admonished both Ms. Maynard and the federal attorney <br /> <br />2 <br />