Laserfiche WebLink
<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 <br />that the PlaintitT lacked standing because the protections of the Fifth Amendment do not <br />extend to aliens outside the U.S. boundaries and the 1944 U.S.-Mexican Treaty does not <br />provide standing for individuals to bring suit. Counts 6-8 were also dismissed for lack of <br />standing. The court found that the Plaintiffs lacked organizational standing because no- <br />concrete and demonstrable injury was alleged. In addition, the Plaintiffs lacked associational <br />standing because there was no allegation that at least one of their members suffered an injury <br />in fact 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 <br />sole remaining count. A hearing on this elaim is to be held in March. <br /> <br />11. Center for Biolo!!:ical Diversitv v. Bureau of Reclamation [NEWI. <br /> <br />On February 15, five environmental groups tIled 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 ElS. .. Tlte <br />Board may wislt to discuss tltis item iu executive sessioll. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4 <br />