BOARD01411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9 Page 10 Conservation District. and pumped water from the low flow conveyance channel into the river. The Court approved the stipulation and ordered media'tion for a permanent solution to the . problem. We are concerned regarding any position the United States may take with respect to releasing San Juan-Chama water directly for instream,flows, The federal law authorizing the San Juan-Chama project appears to forbid releases fo~ such purposes. Further, we are concerned about our water in the Rio Grande and whether the fe4eral government is looking to Platoro or the Closed Basin Project to add to the flows for the minnow beyond our Compact delivery requirements. Negotiations continue. It will be diffidult this next year to keep water in the river, since many parties used up their reserve supplies last year. 16. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District v. Norton, CIV. 99-870,99-872,99- 1445M/RLP (Consolidated), NM Federal District Court. Issue: Whether the rule designating critical h~bitat for the silvery minnow is valid. Decision: The rule is invalid. However, the rule:is to remain in operation for 120 days, in which time the Secretary may issue another rule designating habitat. The federal defendants are seeking an extension of time to complete a new rule 61', in the alternative, a stay of the order pending appeal. The federal district court denied !loth requests. Tbe United States has flied an appeal In the loth Cireuit and petitioned for a stay to allow tbe Fish and Wildlife Service I two more years to complete a new habitat designation. Discussion: This case is a consolidation of cases fiI~d by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. the State of New Mexico, and Forest Guardians that sought court review of the Fish and . Wildlife Service's decision to designate critical habitat for the silvery minnow. In an earlier lawsuit filed by environmentalists, the federal district court in New Mexico issued an injunction requiring the Service to designate critical habitat within a short period of time, unless more time was needed to prepare an environmental impact stat~ment. In designating the habitat. the Service relied on an environmentai assessment and argued that a full BIS was not necessary because designation of the habitat brought no greate~ impacts than what occurred when Service designated the species as endangered. In a strongly worded opinion Judge Mecham held the designation to be invalid. He found that the federal Defendants "relied on incomplete and untimely information, failed to follow a course of inquiry calculated to provide vital facts, failed to account for plain facts which obviously countered! Fish and Wildlife Service's conclusions, and substituted preconceived general conclusions for an individualized analysis and reasoning process." He added that the Service had "put forward a grossly inadequate explanation" of its decision to designate the entire 163 miles of the Mic\dle Rio Grande as critical habitat with only minimal factual support and rationale in the record. !He blasted the Service for its arrogance in its response to concerns of its fellow federal agencies, state agencies, and water users. He also noted that the draft economic analysis "openly maligns agricultural uses in the Middle Rio Grande Valley:' .