BOARD02415

• Board Meeting Date: 3/20/2000
• Description: Directors' Reports
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

,

,

Page 6

.

Charles L. Campbell, et al., v. Orchard Mesa Irril:ation District, Mutual Mesa Lateral
Enterprise, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, 97-S-0526 (in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado)

Issue: Did the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District and Mutual Mesa Lateral Enterprise
violated state and federal laws in accepting a grant from the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and a loan from the CWCB, and whether the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and the CWCB yiolated state and federal laws in issuing the grant and making the loan?

Decision: On February 28, 2000, the U.S. District Court issued a Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge in the Orchard Mesa case, granting the CWCB's Motion to
Dismiss and Orchard Mesa's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying the plaintiffs' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment.

Discussion: Plaintiffs, a small group oflandowners from the Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
("OMID"), originally filed this lawsuit in Feb. 1997 in the Mesa County District Court pro se,
naming the District, its water activity enterprise (MMLE), the CWCB and the U.S. Natural
Resources Conservation Service. The complaint vaguely alleged wrongdoing in the NRCS'
issuance of a grant to the District and in the CWCB's loan to the District through MMLE. The
NRCS caused the case to be removed to federal court. The District then certified questions to the .,..'
Colorado Supreme Court on whether irrigation districts are "districts" under Amendment One
(TABOR). In September 1998, the Colorado Supreme Court held that irrigation districts are not
governmental and are not "districts" for TABOR purposes.

In granting OMID's and MMLE's Motion for Summary Judment, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that there is no evidence in the record to support any of Plaintiffs' claims against
OMID and MMLE. The Magistrate Judge granted the CWCB's Motion to Dismiss because the
CWCB is shielded by Eleventh Amendment Immunity, because Plaintiffs did not state an
arguable claim under C.R.C.P. 106, and because the U.S. District Court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' claims.

United States v. Elephant Butte Irril:ation District, et al.

Issue: Should the complaint be dismissed by the federal district court on grounds of lack
of jurisdiction, res judicata, or abstention?

Decision:

Pending

Discussion: In 1997, the United States filed a quiet title action in New Mexico federal district
court to water rights for the Rio Grande Project and its storage facilities, including Elephant
Butte Reservoir. The Rio Grande Project is an irrigation project with lands in New Mexico and
Texas. Elephant Butte Reservoir is the lynchpin to Colorado's obligations and entitlements
under the Rio Grande Compact. In any year that Elephant Butte spills usable water, Colorado

.

6