BOARD00150 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 3/12/2007
• Description: Report of the Attorney General
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

"

Page 2

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

C.D.E.M., a Mexican e1conomic developlent group, and two U.S. environmental groups
filed an action against the United States 6f America, Bureau of Reclamation challenging the
proposed lining of the All-American Cadal, which conveys Colorado River water to
I
California's Imperial Valley. The canal-lining project is intended to salvage seepage water
from the canal, reducing California's neetl for Colorado River water. Plaintiffs object to the
lining project, claiming that the project w1ill make less seepage water available to Mexican
resources and for use by Mexican business interests. The district court dismissed the
I
Plaintiffs' complaint, finding that the Pla~ntiffs had no right to the seepage water. Plaintiffs
appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and were gbnted a stay with respect to the District Court's
order of dismissal. I
[
Concerned about how a stay on the projeqt would affect the Seven States Agreement, the
CWCB Board authorized the Attorney G~neral to file an Amicus Brief on behalf of the
United States. Colorado's brief was filedr10n October 30, and was joined by New Mexico,
Wyoming, Arizona, and Utah, and suppoIjled by Nevada. (California filed a separate brief
supporting the United States.) Colorado's intent in preparing this brief was to demonstrate
the importance of the canal lining project to all of the basin states, notwithstanding the states'
differing opinions with respect to other C610rado River issues.

I

Colorado's brief may have proven succes~ful, albeit in a somewhat unexpected fashion. The .
9th Circuit has not yet ruled on the Appeal) However, on or about December 13, 2006, the
109th Congress passed legislation that sho~ld effectively resolve the All-American Canal
I
litigation. This legislation provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
I
Bureau of Reclamation is authorized to pn?ceed with the canal lining project. The legislation
was approved based on Congress' recognition of the importance of the lining project to the
,
Colorado River region. Colorado's brief, joined by six of the seven basin states, likely
assisted in demonstrating the importance df the project.
I
,
Based upon the Congressional legislation, ~he United States filed a motion to dismiss the
Appeal. Oral argument on that motion wa~ heard on February 21, 2007. The questions
posed by the 9th Circuit appeared to favor the United States. Thus, it appears likely the
I
United States' motion to dismiss will be ~~nted.

i
5. Division 3 Confined AQuifer New Use Rules
I
I

Cotton Creek Circles filed an appeal in the'[Colorado Supreme Court of the decision
approving the Rules, and filed a brief in opposition to all Proponents' bills of costs.
I

.