Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />VIII. <br /> <br />RUEDI RESERVOIR <br /> <br />**1. WILL THE BL~U OF REC~ATION ACY~;Ow~EDGE THAT ITS <br />OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ENDANGEP~D SPECIES ACT TAKE <br />PRECEDENCE OVER ITS OBI.IGATIONS UNDER THE <br />RECLAMATION LAWS TO OBTAIN REIMBURSElffiNT FOR <br />CONSTRUCTION COSTS? <br /> <br />On July 3, 1984, MAEI sent a letter to the DOl <br />Regional Solicitor's Office requesting review of the <br />case of Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District, <br />et. al., v. Watt, et. al., 537 F.Supp 106. In this <br />case the Secretary had determined, and the District <br />Court agreed, that the Secretary's obligations under <br />. the Endangered Species Act take precedence over his <br />obligations under the reclamation laws to obtain <br />reimbursement for construction costs of the dam. <br />Additionally, the court found that the Secretary's <br />obligation under the ESA is not limited to merely <br />avoiding actions which would jeopardize an endangered <br />species, but also includes the authority under the <br />Act to use the Stampede Dam to restore the cui-ui and <br />the cutthroat trout to a nen-endangered status. <br /> <br />Ruedi Reservoir, as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />Project, is authorized at 43 use 616. The first <br />sentence reads: <br /> <br />-40- <br />