Columbia Funds Series Trust I
 Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund
 Columbia Small Cap Value Fund I


77B Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Trustees and Shareholders of Columbia Funds Series Trust I


In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements
of Columbia Small Cap Value Fund I and Columbia High Yield Municipal
Fund (the Funds) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2007, in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), we considered the Funds internal
control over financial reporting, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, as a basis for designing our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial
statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, but
not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of
the Funds internal control over financial reporting.  Accordingly,
we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Funds
internal control over financial reporting.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting.
In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by
management are required to assess the expected benefits and related
costs of controls.  A funds internal control over financial
reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Such internal control over financial reporting includes policies
and procedures that provide reasonable assurance regarding
prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition,
use or disposition of a funds assets that could have a
material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of
a control does not allow management or employees, in the
normal course of performing their assigned functions, to
prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.  A
significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination
of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the funds
ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or report
external financial data reliably in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than
a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the companys
annual or interim financial statements that is more than
inconsequential will not be prevented or detected.  A
material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of
control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or
interim financial statements will not be prevented or
detected.

Our consideration of the Funds internal control over
financial reporting was for the limited purpose described
in the first paragraph and would not necessarily disclose
all deficiencies in internal control over financial
reporting that might be significant deficiencies or
material weaknesses under standards established by the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (Uni' internal
control over financial reporting and its operation,
including controls for safeguarding securities, that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of
June 30, 2007.


This report is intended solely for the information and use
of management and the Board of Trustees of the Funds and
the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended
to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
August 24, 2007


77E Legal Proceedings

On February 9, 2005, Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. (which has since merged
into Banc of America Capital Management, LLC (now named Columbia Management
Advisors, LLC)) ("Columbia") and Columbia Funds Distributor, Inc.
(which has been renamed Columbia Management Distributors, Inc.) (the
"Distributor") (collectively, the "Columbia Group") entered into an Assurance of
Discontinuance with the New York Attorney General ("NYAG") (the "NYAG
Settlement") and consented to the entry of a cease-and-desist order by the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") (the "SEC Order") on matters relating
to mutual fund trading. The SEC Order and the NYAG Settlement are referred to
collectively as the "Settlements".

Under the terms of the SEC Order, the Columbia Group agreed, among other things,
to: pay $70 million in disgorgement and $70 million in civil money penalties;
cease and desist from violations of the antifraud provisions and certain other
provisions of the federal securities laws; maintain certain compliance and
ethics oversight structures; retain an independent consultant to review the
Columbia Group's applicable supervisory, compliance, control and other policies
and procedures; and retain an independent distribution consultant (see below).
The Columbia Funds have also voluntarily undertaken to implement certain
governance measures designed to maintain the independence of their boards of
trustees. The NYAG Settlement also, among other things, requires
Columbia and its affiliates to reduce management fees for certain
Columbia Funds (including the former Nations Funds) and other mutual funds
collectively by $32 million per year for five years, for a projected total of
$160 million in management fee reductions.

Pursuant to the procedures set forth in the SEC Order, the $140 million in
settlement amounts described above will be distributed in accordance with a
distribution plan that was developed by an independent distribution consultant
and approved by the SEC on April 6, 2007.

A copy of the SEC Order is available on the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov. A
copy of the NYAG Settlement is available as part of the Bank of America
Corporation Form 8-K filing on February 10, 2005.

In connection with the events described above, various parties have filed suit
against certain funds, the Trustees of the Columbia Funds, FleetBoston Financial
Corporation and its affiliated entities and/or Bank of America and its
affiliated entities.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
these cases and cases against other mutual fund companies based on similar
allegations to the United States District Court in Maryland for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings (the "MDL"). Subsequently, additional related
cases were transferred to the MDL. On September 29, 2004, the plaintiffs in the
MDL filed amended and consolidated complaints. One of these amended complaints
is a putative class action that includes claims under the federal securities
laws and state common law, and that names Columbia, the Distributor,
the Trustees of the Columbia Funds, Bank of America Corporation and others as
defendants. Another of the amended complaints is a derivative action purportedly
on behalf of the Columbia Funds that asserts claims under federal securities
laws and state common law.

On February 25, 2005, Columbia and other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the claims in the pending cases. On March 1, 2006, for reasons stated in
the court's memoranda dated November 3, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions
to dismiss. The court dismissed all of the class action claims pending against
the Columbia Funds Trusts. As to Columbia and the Distributor, the claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, the claims under Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 ("ICA") and the state law claims were dismissed.
The claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and claims under Section 36(b) of the ICA were not dismissed.

On March 21, 2005, a purported class action was filed in Massachusetts
state court alleging that certain conduct, including market timing, entitled
Class B shareholders in certain Columbia funds to an exemption from
contingent deferred sales charges upon early redemption ("the CDSC Lawsuit").
The CDSC Lawsuit was removed to federal court in Massachusetts and the
federal Judicial Panel transferred the CDSC Lawsuit to the MDL.

On April 4, 2006, the plaintiffs and the Columbia defendants named in
the MDL, including the Columbia Funds, entered into a term sheet containing the
principal terms of a stipulation of settlement that would settle all
Columbia-related claims in the MDL described above, including the CDSC Lawsuit.
On April 6, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stayed
all actions with respect to these Columbia-related claims. The settlement is
subject to court approval.

In 2004, the Columbia Funds' adviser and distributor and certain affiliated
entities and individuals were named as defendants in certain purported
shareholder class and derivative actions making claims, including claims under
the Investment Company and the Investment Advisers Acts of 1940 and state law.
Certain Columbia Funds were named as nominal defendants. The suits allege, inter
alia, that the fees and expenses paid by the funds are excessive and that the
advisers and their affiliates inappropriately used fund assets to distribute the
funds and for other improper purposes. On March 2, 2005, the actions were
consolidated in the Massachusetts federal court as In re Columbia
Entities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
June 9, 2005. On November 30, 2005, the judge dismissed all claims by plaintiffs
and entered final judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on December 30,
2005. A stipulation and settlement agreement dated January 19, 2007 was filed in
the First Circuit on February 14, 2007, with a joint stipulation of dismissal
and motion for remand to obtain district court approval of the settlement. That
joint motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed. On March 6, 2007, the
case was remanded to the District Court. On May 11, 2007, the District Court
entered a preliminary approval order which granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. A final settlement hearing, at which the District Court will
determine whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved and the
action dismissed on the merits with prejudice, is scheduled for September 18,
2007. The terms of the settlement, if finally approved, will require payments by
the funds' adviser and/or its affiliates, including payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and notice to class members. In the event that the settlement is
not finally approved, the plaintiffs may elect to go forward with their appeal
and no opinion is expressed regarding the likely outcome or financial impact of
such an appeal on any fund.