My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00112
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 7:08:19 AM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:31:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.140.20.A
Description
Colorado River - Colo River Basin - Orgs/Entities - CRBSF - California - Colo River Board of Calif
State
CA
Date
4/8/2003
Author
Gerald Zimmerman
Title
Executive Directors Monthly Report to the Colorado River Board of California
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />002524 . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Court also stated that Reclamation's water deliveries and reservoir system management <br />relative to the interim surplus guidelines, inadvertent overrun and payback policy, and Quantification <br />Settlement Agreement were irrelevant and had no bearing on whether Reclamation could release <br />excess water to Mexico. <br /> <br />Finally, the Court addressed deference to agency decision-making and interpretation of its <br />authorities. The Court conferred deference to Reclamation associated with its interpretation of the <br />tenets of the Law of the River. It stated that "acknowledging such deference in this case may give <br />rise to a concern that agencies will increasingly rely on 50 C.F.R. ~402.03 to avoid ESA consultation <br />duties, but it seems unlikely that any case will present facts that more clearly make any agency's <br />actions nondiscretionary than this one: a Supreme Court injunction, an international treaty, federal <br />statutes, and contracts between the govemment and water users that account for every acre foot of <br />lower Colorado River water." <br /> <br />In conclusion, it seems likely that the plaintiffs will appeal this case to the D.C Circuit Court <br />of Appeals. Also, it should be pointed out that the issue of the states' intervention is still before the <br />D.C. Circuit on interlocutory appeal. Board staff recently checked the website of the Defenders of <br />Wildlife and located a press release describing the Court's opinion. Additionally, Defenders and the <br />Center for Biological Diversity have indicated that they will file an appeal of the Court's decision <br />with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. <br /> <br />WATER QUALITY <br /> <br />Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum <br /> <br />2002 Review-Water Quality Standards for Salinity <br /> <br />On April I ", the State Water Resources Control Board held a public hearing, in Sacramento, <br />California. to receive comments on the 2002 Review. No oral comments were presented at the <br />meeting, however, one letter in support of approval of the 2002 Review was received from the <br />Metropolitan Water District. The SWRCB will consider final adoption at its meeting on April 30, <br />2003, as a consent item. <br /> <br />~, <br /> <br /> <br />Gerald R. Z' an <br />Ive irector <br /> <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.