7901 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Special Master correctly (1) dismissed Kansas' claim that a violation of the operating principles for the Trinidad Project constituted a violation of the Compact, since Kansas had failed to demonstrate that the Trinidad operations caused a material depletion within the meaning of Article IV-D; and (2) found that Kansas failed to prove that operation of Colorado's Winter Water Storage Program resulted in material depletions of usable flows in violation of Article IV-D. Overruling Colorado's exceptions, the Supreme Court holds that the Special Master correctly (1) concluded that the defense of laches should not bar Kansas' claim that increases in post-Compact groundwater well pumping in Colorado have caused a significant decline in the Arkansas River's surface flow in violation of Article IV-D, since the vague and conflicting evidence available to Kansas defeats Colorado's claim of inexcusable delay; (2) determined that the highest annual amount of groundwater shown to have been pumped during the negotiations of the Compact is the amount of post- Compact well pumping that should be allowed; (3) concluded that the 1980 Operating Plan for John Martin Reservoir was "separately bargained for" and should not offset depletions caused by post-Compact well pumping in Colorado; and (4) concluded that, regardless of what burden of proof applies, post-Compact pumping in Colorado had caused material depletions of the usable Stateline flows of the Arkansas River in violation of the Compact. Douglas County v. Babbitt, 9th Cir., 48 F.3d 1495. The issue in this case is whether, as the district court held, the Secretary of the Interior must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in designating critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Affirming the decision of the district court on standing, the Ninth Circuit holds that the County meets all of the strict procedural standing requirements in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992): The County has a procedural right, as well as a concrete interest that could be harmed by the critical habitat designation, and that interest is within the zone of interests protected by NEPA. The Ninth Circuit reverses the decision of the lower court on the merits, holding that NEPA does not apply to the Secretary of the Interior's decision to designate critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species under the ESA because (1) Congress intended that the ESA critical habitat procedures displace the NEPA requirements, (2) NEPA does not apply to actions that do not change the physical environment, and (3) applying NEPA to the ESA would not further the purposes of either statute. 3. Legislation In the First Session of the 104th Congress (without regard to the water year), Congress enacted the following statutes that are important to the Upper Colorado River Basin States: 31