Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />9. Center for Bioloeical Diversity v. Bureau of Reclamation. <br /> <br />On February 15, five environmental groups filed this complaint in Arizona federal district <br />court. They allege that the Bureau and Secretary Norton are violating the Grand Canyon <br />Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act <br />through their operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The complaint focuses on the declining <br />numbers of endangered humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. The plaintiffs want <br />reinitiation of consultation under the ESA and preparation of a supplemental EIS. On May I, <br />the United States filed a motion to dismiss the first count (the claim regarding violation of <br />the Grand Canyon Protection Act). The supporting brief was well-written. Although several <br />lower basin water user organizations, as well as the Colorado River Energy Distributors <br />Association, have discussed intervention, so far no one has taken any action. The Board <br />may wish to discuss this item in executive session. <br /> <br />10. Protect Our Water and Environmental Riehts v. Imperial Irrieation District. . <br /> <br />A separate group of aggrieved citizens, Protect Our Water and Environmental Rights and <br />two of its members ("POWER"), has filed a California state-law challenge to the lining of <br />the All-American Canal (see item number 8 above). The construction of a canal parallel to <br />the All American Canal was selected as the preferred alternative in the 1994 Final <br />Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the All-American Canal <br />Lining Project ("AACLP"). Funding for the project was authorized by the California <br />Legislature in 2003. Thereafter, on January 10, 2006, the Imperial Irrigation District ("IID") <br />authorized financing and construction agreements to build the parallel canal. POWER <br />claims to have submitted evidence at the IID's January meeting of substantial changes in the <br />project itself, substantial changes in the project circumstances, and significant new <br />information not previously considered. <br />On April 18, 2006, POWER filed suit against the lID in the Superior Court of the State of <br />California in and for the County ofImperial.2 The lawsuit alleges that the California <br />Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires supplemental environmental impact review, <br />because of changes that allegedly will impact fish and wildlife and increase the risk of people <br />drowning in the new canal, possible air quality impacts, and information that supposedly <br />shows that urban water conservation is a viable alternative to the project. <br />POWER is seeking an order directing further environmental review, preliminary and <br />permanent injunctions against any construction activity until the court finds that IID has <br />complied with the CEQA, and an award of its costs for the suit, including attorney fees. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />'The lawsuit also names as Real Parties in Interest the San Diego Co.unty Water Authority, Metropolitan Water <br />District of Southern California, United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, and Does 11 through <br />15. <br /> <br />5 <br />