BOARD00169 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/22/2007
• Description: Attorney General's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

/'

,
\

Page 2

.

4. Conseios de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. Norton

C.D.E.M., a Mexican economic development group, and 1\vo U.S. environmental groups filed an
action against the United States of America, Bureau of Reclamation challenging the proposed
lining of the All-American Canal, which conveys Colorado River water to California's Imperial
Valley. The canal-lining project is intended to salvage seepage water from the canal, reducing
California's need for Colorado River water. Plaintiffs objected to the lining project, claiming
that the project will make less seepage water available to Mexican resources and for use by
Mexican business interests. The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiff"
appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and were granted a stay with respect to the project.

Concerned about how a stay on the project would affect the Seven States Agreement, the
Attorney General at the direction of the CWeB Board filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the
United States, which briehvas joined by New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona. and Utah, and
supported by Nevada.

In December, 2006, Congress passed legislation pr~viding that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Bureau of Reclamation should proceed with the canal lining project.
The United States then filed a motion to dismiss the Appeal. Oral argument on that motion was
heard on February 21,2007. The 9th Circuit granted the United States' motion to dismiss.
noting that the amicus briefs filed with the court assisted the court in reaching its decision.

.

Accordingly, the All-American Canal lining project is now expected to proceed. The CWCB's
decision to file its amicus brief, moreover, has been validated. The decision appeared to be
useful both in influencing Congress to pass its legislation directed the project to proceed forward,
and in assisting the 9th Circuit in making its decision to dismiss the plaintiffs appeal.

5. Division 3 Confined Aquifer Ne\v Use Rules

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.

6. Kansas v. Colorado

It has been a productive two months toward resolving Kansas v. Colorado. The states have
agreed on the final decree itself and are actively revising the appendices and the final accounting
for the last ten year period. Special Master Littleworth issued additional orders concerning the
H-I model and JMR accounting issues on March 30 and April 10, 2007. The Special
Engineering Committee of ARCA met on April II and reached agreement on two additional
issues. During the last week of April, the Supreme Court made a rare inquiry to the Special
Master about the status of the case. He informed the Court that the final report and decree
should be ready for submittal by the end ofthe summer or early fall. This month, Kansas
provided Colorado its proposed re-calibration of the H-I model. State Eilgineer Simpson, Chief
Engineer Pope, and their staff.., will meet to discuss those proposed modeling changes and the

./