Laserfiche WebLink
<br />in a reexamination ofthe program budget, but all parties are now confident that there is not a a <br />$50 million shortfall. BOR promises conclusions by next week. . <br /> <br />The next meeting is scheduled for December 6 and 7. It is not expected that the FEIS <br />will be released by that time. <br /> <br />8. Rio Grande Well Controversv. <br /> <br />The case is moving forward through discovery and expert disclosures. The State and the <br />other supporters of the Rules filed a motion for partial Summary Judgment on the <br />constitutionality of the Rules and SB 04-222 to which the opposers have responded. <br />Opposers also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment which rehashed their arguments <br />from their response. The State and supporters also filed l4 expert disclosures/reports on <br />August 3. Opposers' expert disclosures/reports were due October 2. A pretrial conference is <br />set for Tuesday November 8. <br /> <br />9. Ground Water Ril!ht for Great Sand Dunes National Park. 2004 CW 35. <br /> <br />The United States filed a Motion to Re-Refer the matter from the Referee to the District <br />Court. The Motion is pending but should be granted soon. <br /> <br />10. Conseios de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali v. Norton. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />On July 19, 2005, C.D.E.M., a Mexicali non-profit economic development group, filed a <br />class-action suit against the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation, <br />challenging the project to line the All-American Canal. The water to be saved was <br />earmarked for the San Luis Rey Indian Tribes in California. C.D.E.M. was joined by two <br />U.S. environmental groups. The complaint has eight counts: (1) unconstitutional deprivation <br />of Mexican water users right to use seepage from the canal; (2) constitutional tort by <br />deprivation ofuse of seepage water; (3) that Mexican water users are entitled to equitable <br />apportionment of the seepage water; (4) that Interior is estopped from lining the canal <br />because it has allowed development of the infrastructure and economy in Mexicali that is <br />dependent upon the seepage.; (5) NEPA violations; (6) Endangered Species Act violations; <br />(7) unlawful take of migratory bird species; and (8) violation of a provision of the San Luis <br />Rey Settlement Act. The plaintiffs ask that construction be enjoined until there is <br />environmental compliance. Of more importance to Colorado River water users, they ask for <br />"an order permanently erijoining and restraining Defendants from confiscating or re- <br />distributing property [i.e., the seepage water] of the class." The United States and a number <br />of lower basin intervenors have moved to dismiss the claims. For the time being, all the <br />Upper Basin States are staying out and simply monitoring for any indication of an attempt to <br />impact the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />4 <br />