Laserfiche WebLink
<br />...'r <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 3 <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 then filed a motion for rehearing en bane, which was summarily denied. <br />The matter is now back in front of the Forest Service. <br /> <br />6. Rio Grande Rules Governinl! Confined Aquifer New Wells. <br /> <br />The Court has not yet issued a ruling. <br /> <br />7. Ground Water Ril!ht for Great Sand Dunes National Park, 2004 CW 35, <br /> <br />The discovery schedule was pushed back 2 months at the request of the United States. <br />The next significant milestone is the expert disclosures due September 29. No trial date is <br />set, but there is an additional scheduling conference set for 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 ofthe All-American Canal, which conveys <br />Colorado River water to California'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 assertcd cight claims: (I) the plan to line the All-American canal constitutcs a <br />deprivation ofpropcrty without duc process of law; (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 AP A; (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 />Defendant, the United States of America, and Defendant-Intervenor, Central Arizona Water <br />Conservation District, moved to dismiss Counts 1-4 and 6-8 for lack of standing. <br />The Motions to Dismiss were granted. With respect to Claims 1-4, the court found that <br />the Plaintiff lacked standing because the protections of the Fifth Amendment do not extend <br />to aliens outside the U.S. boundaries and the 1944 U.S.-Mexican Treaty does not provide <br />standing for individuals to bring suit. Counts 6-8 were also dismissed for lack of standing. <br />The court found that thc Plaintiffs lacked organizational standing because no concrete and <br />demonstrable injury was alleged. In addition, the Plaintiffs lacked associational standing <br />because there was no allegation that at least one of their members suffered an injury in fact <br />fairly traceable to the alleged violations of various federal laws. <br />Count 5, which concerns allegations of violations ofNEPA and the APA is now the sole <br />remaining count. A hearing on this claim was held in April. No ruling yet. <br /> <br />3 <br />