My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01488
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01488
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:02:25 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:56:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/24/2004
Description
Report of the Attorney General
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~. <br /> <br />r <br />'! <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />KEN SALAZAR <br />Attorney General <br />DONALD S. QUICK <br />Chief Deputy Attorney General <br />ALAN J. GILBERT <br />Solicitor General <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DEPARTMENT OF LAW <br /> <br />STATE SERVtCES BUILDING <br />1525 Sherman Street - 5th Floor <br />Denverr Colorado 80203 <br />Phone 303)866-4500 <br />FAX 303 866-5691 <br /> <br />OFFICE OF THE A TIORNEY GENERAL <br /> <br />May 17, 2004 <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />FROM: Ken Salazar <br />Attorney General <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Caro1.AngeL. <br />First Assistant Attorney General <br /> <br />Felicity Hannay <br />Senior Counsel <br /> <br />RE: Report of the Attomey Generall <br /> <br />1. Forest Service Reserved Ril!hts Cases, Case Nos. W-1146-73 et al" Water Division 7. <br /> <br />Another status report is due to the court on June 15, Pete Ampe is working to coordinate a <br />field visit with our technical experts for the week of June 21. <br /> <br />2. Kansas v. Colorado. United States Supreme Court. No. 105, Orie:inal. <br /> <br />Colorado and the United States filed response briefs to Kansas' exceptions on March 22. <br />Kansas filed a motion requesting permission to file a sur-reply responding to the United States' <br />brief(which agreed with us that a river mast~r was not a good idea). We did not oppose Kansas' <br />motion to file their sur-reply, because Kansas was careful to respond only to the federal <br />arguments, and our counter-arguments on the river master issue were laid out well in our brief. <br />The Supreme Court denied the motion anyway. Oral argument will occur at the Court's next <br />term. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />] Text concerning previously reported matters will usually contain only information on recent developments rather <br />than repeating background information. Malerial to which we wish to call special attention appears in bold italics, <br />and any entirely new matters are specifically identified as [NEW]. <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.