BOARD02335 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4 Negotiations are continuing. The National Park Service has offered a stipulation, intended to encourage pro se objectors to withdraw their statements of opposition, that subordinates its water right to decreed water rights senior to the Aspinall Unit and to the 60,000 acre-feet of in-basin uses covered by the Aspinall Subordination Agreement. Several pro se objectors have signed this stipulation. The current stay expires April 7th. The Park Service would like to reach an agreement in principle, at least in rough form, before then. 12. Forest Service "Errata" for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests Mana!:ement Plan. The Forest Service issued so-called "errata" to these national forest plans, but these were actually substantive changes to the plans in disguise -- including one change relating to the imposition of bypass flows. These "errata" appear to be invalid because the Forest Service did not comply with the public notice and collaboration requirements for amending forest management plans. On January 29th, we sent the Forest Service a letter requesting that it withdraw the errata within 30 days or we would take appropriate legal action. The deputy regional attorney advised us that the Washington, D. C. office is reviewing the forest plan and will be making a decision on the errata soon, but he couldn't give us a firm date. Therefore, we are drafting a complaint. 13. Colorado River. The Imperial Irrigation District (lID) did not meet the Department of the Interior's December 31 deadline to accept the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) reached among all other southern California users of Colorado River water. Instead they proposed their own agreement at the eleventh hour that was not satisfactory to either DOl or the other patiies to the QSA. Secretary ofthe Interior Gale Norton announced that 2003 would be a "normal".water year - i.e. no surplus declaration - and that DOl would limit its deliveries to California to 4.4 million acre- feet (mat) and would not allow any surplus water to be delivered. DOl also rejected lID's request for 3.1 maf, limited nD to approximately 2.8 maf and split the additional 0.3 maf between MWD and Coachella Valley Water District. On January 11, lID filed suit against DOl in federal court claiming that although the Secretary may have the right to limit California to 4.4 mafin a normal year, the Secretary was without authority to reduce lID's water rights or re- arrange the intrastate priorities within California. The court ruled in lID's favor, issuing an injunction prohibiting Interior from cutting back deliveries. The California entities have agreed to a new QSA, which they've presented to Interior.