Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000353 <br /> <br />DRAFT-Not for distribution <br /> <br />ecosystems is the liability of their users, as well as anyone carrying out works or activities that <br />affect those resources.,,199 Of note, those and other specified criteria "shall be considered" in <br />connection with a host of listed activities, including the "grant of concessions," as well as <br />"suspensions or revocations of permits, authorizations, concessions or allotments granted <br />pursuant to the National Water Law, in those cases of works or activities that damaged national <br />hydraulic resources or affect the ecological equilibrium in a region.,,200 Also subject to the <br />criteria are "policies and programs for protection of aquatic species which are endemic, <br />hr d. d f" ,,201 <br />t eatene, or manger 0 extmctIon.... <br /> <br />It would appear from this brief survey that domestic Mexican laws authorize the creation <br />or protection of ecological flows through regulation, but may not reserve water for that purpose <br />or compel relevant government officials or agencies to exercise their authority to do so. <br /> <br />B. United States <br /> <br />1. Federal Law <br /> <br />To date, the "equitable apportionment" doctrine fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in <br />the exercise of its original jurisdiction over interstate disputes has not included enforceable <br />protection for ecological flows?02 The Endangered Species Act has been applied in a manner <br />affecting diversions and protecting flows in both intrastate and interstate waters,203 but it has not <br />been applied domestically to protect international flows or foreign habitat, something that is <br />. h h' d' . ~ d I 204 <br />bemg soug t, owever, In a case now pen mg m a J.e era court. <br /> <br />2. State Law <br /> <br />While there are selective state statutory provisions and administrative practices within the <br />seven Colorado River Basin states allowing for the recognition of instream flows,205 they do not <br />operate to require the delivery of flows at the international border for ecological purposes south. <br /> <br />C. Conclusion: No Domestic Legal Mandate Exists for Provision of Ecological <br />Water Flows for the Colorado River Delta. <br /> <br />It may therefore be concluded that neither the United States nor Mexico appear to have <br />domestic laws mandating ecological flows for the Colorado Delta. <br /> <br />v. . Legal Authority Available to Facilitate Creation of Ecological Water Flows <br /> <br />A. Domestic Laws <br /> <br />I. Mexico (see discussion above under IV). <br /> <br />2. United States (see discussion above under IV). <br /> <br />18 <br />