Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />95 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />claim, Because the state court adjudication proceeding was filed before the initiation of this <br />lawsuit and the United States is a party in the state case, the federal court abstaihed from <br />exercising its jurisdiction. El Paso County Water Improvement District No. I (EPCWID) had <br />filed a counterclaim against the United States and Elephant Butte Irrigation District regarding the <br />manner in which project water was delivered to them. EPCWID receives most of its delivery <br />through return flows from EBID's lands and wanted more direct releases from the reservoir. <br />This issue could affect how Compact water is accounted, when those releases are made. The <br />court dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice. Both the United States and EPCWID have <br />appealed to the lO"' Circuit Court the lower courts dismissal of the quiet title action on the <br />grounds that the matter was already being litigated in the state court adjudication. The U.S. and <br />EPCWID have tiled their opening briefs arguing that the federal court erred in dismissing <br />the action, because the state adjudication proceedings are not parallel proceedings under <br />the doctrine ofabstention. <br /> <br />14. EBID v. United States, et al., CIVOO-1309, NM Federal District Court. <br /> <br />Issue: Declaration ofrights for the allocation and delivery of Rio Grande Project water. <br /> <br />Decision: <br /> <br />Motions to Dismiss are pending. <br /> <br />Discussion: One day after the court dismissed the United States quiet title action. EBID filed <br />its own lawsuit in New Mexico federal district court against the United States and EPCWID' <br />The suit requests the court to adjudicate the contractual rights oCthe parties for allocation and <br />delivery of Rio Grande Project, to establish an operating agreement for project water, and to <br />appoint a special master to govern the allocation and delivery of project water. The United <br />States and EPCWID filed motions to dismiss arguing that there is no fonnal agreement between <br />the parties on operation and delivery of Project water and the court cannot create one. We will <br />be watching this one closely. <br /> <br />15. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Martinez, No. 99 CV 1320, NM Federal District Court. <br /> <br />Issue: Will water users on the upper and middle Rio Grande be forced to by-pass flows <br />to keep the river bed wet and protect fish under the Endangered Species Act? <br /> <br />Decision: Pending. <br /> <br />Discussion: Several environmental groups (Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Forest <br />Guardians. Audubon Society, and the Southwest Environmental Center) filed suit against the <br />Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. The federal agencies asserted in a biological <br />assessment that they have little discretion to make releases from federal reservoirs for the silvery <br />minnow and willow flycatcher, because of constraints by Compacts, federal law and existing <br />contracts. The environmental groups filed a motion for preliminary injunction in April to assure <br />that water remained flowing in the river through the irrigation season. <br /> <br />The Court ordered mediation and issued' a gag order as to the negotiations. The parties were <br />able to negotiate a stipulation providing water to the minnow. using some of Albuquerque's San <br />.Iuan-Chama contract water by exchange, conserved water by the Middle Rio Grande <br />