BOARD00043 ‎(2)‎

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

. , .,. .

.

.

.

Page 3

The district court also granted the defendants' summary judgment with respect to Count
5, The court found that, due to the transboundary nature of the claimed environmental
impacts, any environmental consequences of the lining of the canal were too speculative to
require preparation of an environmental impact statement

The district court's ruling resulted in the completed dismissal of the PlaintifIs' complaint.
However, the Plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit, and have been
granted a stay with respect to the dismissal. The appeal is set for oral argument on December
4,2006, Defendant-Intervenor the Central Arizona Water Conservation District has
requested that the State of Colorado file an amicus brief supporting the district court's
decision, The Attorney General's Office may wish to consult with the Board to obtain
guidance with respect to filing such a brief

6. Center for Biolol!ical Diversity v. Bureau of Reclamation. - Case No, 3:06-CY-00494,
United States District Court for the District of Arizona

On February 14, 2006, plaintiffs the Center for Biological Diversity and several other
environmental organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the District Arizona
against defendants the United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Secretary of the Interior,
alleging that the federal defendants have violated the Grand Canyon Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act, and NEP A with respect to the management of Glen Canyon Dam, On
July 22,2006, Carol Angel and John Cyran of the Attorney General's Office, at the direction of
the Colorado Water Conservation Board, filed a motion requesting the Court grant the State of
Colorado permission to intervene in this litigation, The CWCB was concerned the lawsuit could
force changes in the operation of Glen Canyon Dam in a manner that could injure the State of
Colorado's interests,

Since the AGO filed its motion to intervene, the federal defendants and the plaintiffs agreed
upon a tentative settlement of the litigation, This settlement requires the federal defendants to
prepare certain documentation regarding the operations of Glen Canyon Dam, without
committing to any operational changes, Specifically, the federal defendants have agreed that by
Jan 31, 2007 they will 'initiate environmental documentation activities" concerning Glen Canyon
Dam Operations, On or before May I, 2008 the Feds will "independently" request formal
consultation, Thereafter, the federal defendants will prepare a biological assessment.

The AGO and the CWCB Board felt that this settlement was unobjectionable in that it did not
impose any new operational requirements on Glen Canyon Dam, The AGO was concerned,
however, that the settlement did not address was the status of the intervenors with respect to
litigation that arose out of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, after consulting with the
CWCB, the AGO informed the plaintiffs and federal defendants that Colorado would support the
settlement if the settlement were to include a provision granting the State intervention for
purposes of any litigation brought under the settlement agreement. After some initial resistance,
the federal defendants and plaintiffs agreed to this condition, The AGO believes this condition
useful, as there was some chance the State's motion to intervene would have been denied,