BOARD00043 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 9/20/2006
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

... - . .

Page 2

reallocation of fees and expenses paid by the United States, and the States also reached
agreement on the Dispute Resolution Procedure to be included in the Judgment and Decree (as
Appendix H), From all this, we infer that the Special Master is working on an order to resolve
the remaining issues,

.

3. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes' Settlement. Case Nos. 7-W-1603-76F &
76J. 02-CW-85. & 02-CW-86.

Trial was held on August 7-11 on the tribal change applications and the modifications of the
tribal consent decrees to match the reconfigured A-LP Project The Court has said it plans to
rule on these cases, and the related diligence case for the underlying project water rights. by
October,

4. Ground Water Ril!ht for Great Sand Dunes National Park. 2004 CW 35.

At the request of Applicant United States, all deadlines have been pushed back 90 days, No
trial date is set, but there is an additional scheduling conference set for November, 2006,

5. Conseios de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. Norton.

CDEM" a Mexican economic development group, and two U,S, environmental groups
filed an action challenging the proposed lining of the All-American Canal, which conveys .
Colorado River water to California's Imperial Valley, The Congressionally authorized
canal-lining project is intended to salvage seepage water from the canal. Lining the canal
will result in less seepage water recharging the Mexicali aquifer.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted eight claims: (1) deprivation of property without
due process; (2) unconstitutional tort; (3) violation of the doctrines of equitable
apportionment or equitable use; (4) estoppel; (5) violation ofNEPA; (6) violations of the
ESA; (7) unlawful take of a listed migratory bird species; and (8) violation of the San Louis
Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Collectively, Defendant, the United States of
America, and Defendant-Intervenor, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, moved
to dismiss Counts 1-4 and 6-8 for lack of standing, and moved for summary judgment with
respect to Count 5,

The Motions to Dismiss were granted, With respect to Claims 1-4, the district court
found that the Plaintifflacked standing because the protections of the Fifth Amendment do
not extend to aliens outside the US, boundaries, and the 1944 U.S,-Mexican Treaty does not
provide standing for individuals to bring suit With respect to Counts 6-8, the court found
the Plaintiffs had failed to allege concrete and demonstrable injury-in-fact fairly traceable to
the alleged violations of federal law,

.