Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />written proposals for discussion. The proposals should address one or all of the following six questions <br />that the Senator's believe frame the nation's most pressing water challenges: (I) Water Supply and <br />Resources Management and Coordination; (2) Role ofthe Bureau of Reclamation in the 21 st Century; (3) <br />Indian and Federal Reserved Water Rights; (4) Conservation and Technological Developments; (5) <br />Knowledge of Water Resources; and (6) Drought. <br /> <br />A SWSI related proposal was submitted and it is attached for your information. <br /> <br />Mexico, US Reach Agreement on Water Debt: Mexico will transfer water to the U.S. to end a long- <br />standing feud that led U.S. fanners to sue Mexico for failing to comply with a water treaty. The <br />agreement will end a 12-year-old dispute that has affected Texas fanners over 733,000 acre-feet of water <br />that Mexico owes under a 1944 treaty. Under the agreement, Mexico agreed to deliver 578,000 acre-feet <br />of water to the U.S. and the will credit Mexico with 154,846 acre-feet by Sept. 30 and deliver 470,000 <br />acre-feet a year over the next three years to keep current with the 1944 treaty. <br />The 1944 water-sharing treaty requires Mexico to send the United States an average of350,000 acre-feet <br />of water annually from six Rio Grande tributaries. The U.S. in return must send Mexico 1.5 million acre- <br />feet from the Colorado River. <br /> <br />Abundant rains in 2003 and 2004 largely replenished South Texas' two Rio Grande reservoirs and allowed <br />Mexico to reduce its water debt from 1.5 million acre-feet to less than 800,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br />. A group of Rio Grande Valley irrigators and fanners sued Mexico under the North American Free Trade <br />Agreement signed by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. They are seeking $500 million for crop loss and <br />damages they say were caused by Mexico failing to comply with the treaty. <br /> <br />Texas and federal officials pressed the Bush administration to make the debt a national priority. <br /> <br />New EP A Administrator: President Bush has nominated Acting EP A Administrator Steve Johnson to be <br />the first career EP A employee to head the agency. Johnson has worked at the EP A for 24 years. He would <br />be the first professional scientist to lead the agency. Bush said Johnson was an expert on pesticides and <br />helped design new regulations to improve food safety and will lead federal efforts to ensure the security <br />of drinking water supplies. Johnson, who turns 54 this month, said he would carry out an environmental <br />agenda "while maintaining our nation's economic competitiveness." <br /> <br />Supremes Weigh Water Rights: Individual San Joaquin Valley farmers had their day in the U.S. <br />Supreme Court as Justices heard arguments that they should be allowed to sue the federal government for <br />undelivered irrigation water. However, because the irrigation districts they belong to have settled their <br />suits against the government, the farmers require judicial approval to sue on their own. <br /> <br />One estimate indicates that they could be owed $32 million because the U.S. breached the irrigation <br />contract to cut irrigation deliveries to preserve endangered species. Under the 1992 Central Valley Proj ect <br />Improvement Act, more than 1 million acre-feet of water was diverted away from fanns. Water districts <br />sued, but in 1995 WestIands, the largest district, dropped its lawsuit as part of the newly adopted Cal-Fed <br />program emphasizing state and federal collaboration on solving water problems. <br /> <br />Although the federal government is customarily immune from lawsuits, the 1982 Reclamation Reform <br />Act permitted suits over water contracts. The legal question facing the court Wednesday was whether the <br />individual fanners could be considered "intended third-party beneficiaries" of the WestIands water <br />contract. <br /> <br />. Environmentalists Sue Over New Forest Rules: Environmentalists have sued the Bush administration <br />over the new Forest Service rules. The rules were issued in December and give managers more discretion <br />to approve projects without lengthy environmental reviews. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />,~ <br />