Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Brimmer in federal court scheduled for March 91h was vacated by the Court. This argument <br />was to address the judicial review of the U.S.'s actions on the Black Canyon reserved right <br />quantification. We are awaiting word on whether and when the Court will set a new date. <br /> <br /> <br />5. Trout Unlimited v. Department of Agriculture. <br /> <br />The Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals heard oral argument on March 6 in Salt Lake <br />City. Unfortunately, the panel appeared to be focused on the jurisdictional issue - because <br />the Forest Service withdrew its appeal, the district court's decision remanding matters to the <br />agency is not generally considered a final action. It is possible the Tenth Circuit may dismiss <br />the appeal. The Board may wish to discuss this item ill executive sessioll. <br /> <br />6. Green Mountain Reservoir/Heeney landslide case. <br />Because this case has been settled, this item will be removed in subsequent reports. <br /> <br />7. South Platte Three-State Cooperative A2reement. <br /> <br />At the beginning of the year, Ted Kowalski took over from Steve Sims as the state <br />representative to this process. Because of that, from now on updates on this item will <br />generally be presented in the directors' report rather than this report. <br /> <br />8. Rio Grande Well Controversy. <br /> <br />All evidence was presented to the Court over 5 Y, weeks. Closing arguments are set for <br />the afternoon of Friday, March 24 in Alamosa <br /> <br />9. Ground Water Right for Great Sand Dunes National Park, 2004 CW 35. <br /> <br />Supporters' initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures are due March 30, 2006. No trial date is set, <br />but there is an additional scheduling conference set for November, 2006. <br /> <br />10. Conseios de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. Norton. <br /> <br />C.D.E.M., a Mexican economic development group, and two U.S. environmental <br />groups filed an action challenging the proposed lining of the All-American Canal, which <br />conveys Colorado River water to California's Imperial Valley. The Congressionally <br />authorized canal-lining project is intended to salvage seepage water and allow the water thus <br />saved to supply the Indian tribes involved in the San Luis Rey settlement. In their complaint, <br />the Plaintiffs asserted eight claims: (1) 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 AP A; (6) violations of the ESA; (7) unlawful take of a listed migratory bird species; and <br /> <br />3 <br />