7041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

overruled Oklahoma's objection, holding that nothing on the face of the Compact indicates a clear intention to base New Mexico's limitation on available reservoir capacity when Texas' limitation is based on stored water. New Mexico excepted to Part VII of the Master's Report, in which the Master recommended that water spilling or released from Conchas Dam, as well as return flow and seepage from the Tucumcari Project, be subject to Article IV(b)'s 200,000 acre-feet limitation on conservation storage if the water is impounded in Ute Dam or other downstream dams in New Mexico. The eourt overruled New Mexico's exception, holding that under the Compact, New Mexico is entitled to 200,000 acre-feet of storage below eonchas Dam, so if New Mexico has at any time stored more than that amount, it was not entitled to do so. The eourt found that any water in excess of200,000 acre-feet should have been allowed to flow through Ute Dam to be put to use by the downstream States rather than being impounded in New Mexico. Finally, the Court ruled on Oklahoma and Texas' exception to the Master's recommendation that the eourt remand to the eanadian River eommission the question whether certain water that New Mexico has stored in Ute Reservoir and designated a "desilting pool" is exempt from the Article IV(b) limitation. The Court sustained the States' exception, holding that there was no legal basis for the Master's refusal to decide this question, since there is an actual, existing controversy among the States over this issue and there was no claim that the "desilting pool" issue was not properly presented. There- fore, the Court remanded the "desilting pool" issue to the Master for further proceedings. Upper Snake River Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Hodel, 9th Cir., 921 F.2d 232. Affirming the decision of the district court (706 F .Supp. 737), the Ninth eircuit held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) did not require the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before periodically adjusting the flow of water from the Palisades Dam in Idaho in response to water supply conditions. The Court found that when an ongoing project undergoes changes amounting to "major federal action," the operating agency must prepare an EIS, but the Bureau's decision to reduce water flows from the dam was part of an ongoing operation and is a routine managerial action that is outside NEP A's EIS provisions. Since the Bureau was doing "nothing new, nor more extensive, nor other than that contemplated when the project was first operational," the Ninth Circuit held that preparation of an EIS was not required. 30