Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 10 <br /> <br />13. Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton (environmentaI2roupS' suit for violations ofESA <br />relatin2 to Lower Colorado River activities. <br /> <br />Issue: U.S. and Mexican enviromnental groups filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of <br />the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine <br />Fisheries Service, and the Secretary of Commerce on the Secretarial authority to manage the <br />lower Colorado River for the benefit of endangered species in Mexico. <br /> <br />Decision: The court denied motions to intervene filed by Arizona, California, Nevada, and <br />several of the large water user entities in those states. The lower basin entities appealed that <br />decision. <br /> <br />Discussion: Carol Angel in my office is coordinating with the other Colorado River basin <br />states regarding litigation strategy, and will continue to monitor the case. In a short order, the <br />court dismissed the motions to intervene on the grounds that the entities did not have standing, <br />since they could not meet the "injury in fact" test. The court noted that the only relief being <br />requested was for the federal defendants to engage in pnother consultation with Fish & Wildlife <br />Service that takes into account impacts on listed spec~es that occur in Mexico. Because the <br />plaintiffs are not seeking any injunctive relief that ad~ersely impact any allocation of water, the <br />court reasoned there was no injury to the proposed intervenors. The court invited the proposed <br />intervenors to file amicus briefs on the legal issues, which they have indicated they will do. <br /> <br />Our office prepared a legal analysis on the issue of whether the Bureau must consider the <br />impacts of its actions in the lower Colorado River on listed species in the Colorado River delta in <br />Mexico. The Wyoming and New Mexico Attorneys General joined us in sending the analysis to <br />John Leshy, then-Solicitor for the Department ofIntdrior. We subsequently sent the analysis to <br />Secretary Norton. Defenders of Wildlife filed its op~ning brief asking the court to require the <br />Secretary to complete a new Section 7 consultation process that includes an analysis of the <br />effects of Reclamation's actions on all listed species that occur in Mexico. The United States <br />responded with strong arguments that we've supported, including the argument that <br />consultation is not required or useful for the BureaU's nondiscretionary actions, and the <br />argument that once water crosses the Mexican bor!ier the Bureau has no control over whether <br />it reaches the species of concern. The brief also aIigued that plaintiffs lacked standing to <br />challenge the U.S. actions. The U.S. avoided tack;\ing the extraterritoriality question head <br />on, saying that it's a red herring because the Bure~u considered the extraterritorial effects of <br />its discretionary actions, whether it was required tp or not. After some additional <br />extensions, amicus briefs are now due August 3, 2001. Nevada has circulated a draft <br />brief. The Board may want to consider in execu.tive session whether to file an amicus <br />brief on the issue, what arguments to include, and how to coordinate our efforts with those <br />in the other basin states. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />