Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4. Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Reserved Ril!hts Case. No. W-437, <br />. Water Division 4. <br /> <br />The state water court case remains stayed, awaiting resolution of the environmental <br />objectors' federal action before quantification can proceed. The oral argument before Judge <br />Brimmer in federal court is rescheduled to June 29'h and 30th. This argument will address the <br />judicial review of the U.S. 's actions on the Black Canyon reserved right quantification and <br />the agreements reached with the CWCs. <br /> <br />5. Trout Unlimited v. Department of Al!riculture. <br /> <br />The Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals heard oral argument on March 6 in Salt Lake <br />City. As we feared, the panel entered an order on March 28 dismissing the appeal for lack of <br />jurisdiction. It held that the district court's decision remanding matters to the agency is not a <br />final action. We are filing a motion for reconsideration en bane, because of the need for <br />resolution of the controversial legal issue of bypass flows. The Board may wish to discuss <br />this item in executive session. <br /> <br />6. Rio Grande Well Controversy. <br /> <br />The parties filed closing briefs on March 23 and closing arguments were held on March <br />24, 2006. Proposed findings offact are due on May 26, 2006. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />7. Ground Water Rieht for Great Sand Dunes National Park, 2004 CW 35. <br /> <br />Both sides have submitted their initial Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures. Discovery opened on <br />May 1, 2006, but no party has sent out any written discovery or sought to schedule <br />depositions. No trial date is set, but there is an additional scheduling conference set for <br />November, 2006. <br /> <br />8. Conseios de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. Norton. <br /> <br />C.D.E.M., a Mexican economic development group, and two U.S. environmental groups <br />filed an action challenging the proposed lining of the All-American Canal, which conveys <br />Colorado River water to Calitornia's Imperial Valley. The Congressionally authorized <br />canal-lining project is intended to salvage seepage water and allow the water thus saved to <br />supply the Indian tribes involved in the San Luis Rey settlement. In their complaint, the <br />Plaintiffs asserted eight claims: (I) the plan to line the All-American canal constitutes a <br />deprivation of property without due process oflaw; (2) an unconstitutional tort was <br />committed by acting in concert with others to usurp the Mexicali residents' water rights; (3) <br />the water rights at issue are subject to the doctrines of equitable apportionment or equitable <br />use; (4) the U.S. is estopped from deviating from the current operation of the canal because <br />any deviation would adversely affect the recharge of the aquifer; (5) violation ofNEPA and <br />the APA; (6) violations of the ESA; (7) unlawful take of a listed migratory bird species; and <br />(7) violation of the San Louis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. Collectively, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br />