WSP10498 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . The government's attorney, Mr. Sam Rauch, Department of Justice, discussed the limitations on the Secretary's discretion based upon the Boulder Canyon Project Act, 1944 Mexican Water Treaty, and 1964 U.S. Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California. A fundamental element of the government's case is that the sovereign country of Mexico is lacking from this case. The point being, that even if the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, there is nothing that can be done to compel Mexico to take any action to protect species in the Delta. Most of Mr. Rauch's time was spent describing, to the Court, that the government did consult under the ESAon all relevant Reclamation discretionary actions. If the Court were to require Reclamation to consult on non-discretionary actions, it would be establishing new law. Mr. Rauch then allowed the amICI parties to utilize approximately 15 minutes of the government's time to provide additional infonnation or argue specific points. Mr. Andrew Turner, representing Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Arizona Power Authority, Salt River Project, Yuma Area Water Users, and others, reinforced the notion that the government had fully complied with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered SpeCies Act (ESA) in regard to the agency's discretionary actions. Ms. Sara Price, representing the Colorado River Commission of Nevada and others, including the State of California, argued that it is the perogative of the Executive Branch, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement foreign policy. She also stated that Section 8 of the ESA lays out the congressionally intended course of action for cooperation on endangered species issues in a foreign country . Ms. Lisa McKnight, representing the Salt River Project, addressed the Court's last question regarding why, or how, the amici "would be harmed" if an adverse decision were rendered. She stated that if Colorado River water was re-apportioned for species needs in a foreign country, there was no guarantee that the water would or could be used for the species, and that water/power users in the United States would be materially deprived of allocations and apportionments established under federal law, decrees, a treaty, and an interstate compact. At the conclusion of the District Court hearing, Judge Robertson indicated that he would issue his ruling, as soon as possible, and thanked all of the participants for the valuable infonnation. The hearing was concluded at approximately 6: 15 p.m. EST. At the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on November 1,2001, Mr. Harris reported that many of the issues regarding the basic merits of the case before the District Court were discussed by the three-judge panel and plaintiff's and defendant's counsel. However, the panel primarily focused on the issue of the plaintiff's standing. The questions and statements of the panelled to the conclusion that it is likely that the Circuit Court will not rule in this case until the District Court has issued its ruling. One of the Circuit Court Justices, Justice Randolph, asked the question, "How do you know if the water would even get to the species?" Also, when the plaintiff's brought up the issue of the needs of the pupfish, Justice Randolph remarked, that he knew that pupfish existed throughout the southwestern United States. 8