Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />to the State line. So the location of the Wildcat Reservoir <br /> <br />is within the boundaries of our district and we are <br /> <br />concerned about it because they have denied this permit <br /> <br />based upon an increase in the consumptive use. <br /> <br />Taken logically, this could also interfere with a man <br /> <br />changing his crop pattern on his farm because he could <br /> <br />increase the consumptive use of his water and they might try <br /> <br />to -- under this theory the United States might think they <br />wanted to intervene in that. It certainly will affect any <br />404 Permits to do any dredge and fill activities and other <br />activities that are subject to 404 Permits. <br />We feel that the precedent here, the effect on the <br /> <br />compact that we have with the State of Nebraska and on all <br /> <br />water users in the future is of such an important matter <br /> <br /> <br />that we think the State should be involved in this <br /> <br /> <br />litigation to represent the State to try to maintain State <br /> <br /> <br />water rights. <br /> <br /> <br />We are in agreement with, I think, with what Mr. Pascoe <br /> <br /> <br />has indicated here. There has been a motion to dismiss <br /> <br /> <br />filed with the Federal District Court by the United States. <br /> <br /> <br />It's a 23-page motion. It has every defense that you can <br /> <br /> <br />imagine standing exhaustion of administrative remedies, if <br /> <br />not everything; sovereign immunity of the United States <br />Government. <br /> <br />All of them are in here and some of them I think may be <br />