Laserfiche WebLink
<br />G02574 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />i.:nport:mt for the Board to go on record opposing :my such change and I have included L'l the Board <br />folder a draft letter for the Board's review. <br /> <br />California's Colorado River Water Use Plan <br /> <br />Status of the Colorado River Water Use Plan <br /> <br />The Board staff continues to prepare the next draft of California's Colorado River Water Use <br />Plan (plan). The version currently available for public review and comment is dated May 2000. As <br />soon as the next iteration is completed, I will transmit it to the water agencies and others, for their <br />review and comment. The next draft of the Plan will include a detailed description of the agreements <br />and activities associated with implementation of the ISG, QSA, and related agreements, as well as <br />provide updated information on other prograrns and activities. <br /> <br />Colorado River Environmental Activities <br /> <br />Spirit of the Sage Council. et al. vs. Gale Norton. Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al. - <br />Memorandum Opinion and Order - December 11. 2003 <br /> <br />As you may recall, the United States District Court, for the District of Columbia, vacated the <br />''No Surprises" rule and permit revocation rule aspects of the Endangered Species Act policy <br />guidelines prepared by the Clinton Administration. Unfortunately, at the time of the Court's Order, <br />. no memorandum and opinion was released to explain the Court's order. On December-11, 2003,-the-_ <br />Court released the memorandum opinion. . <br /> <br />It is worth briefly explaining the issues that were argued in the lawsuit. The Spirit of the <br />Sage Council (SSC) is an organization, based in Pasadena, California, comprised of several southern <br />California Native American Tribes and environmental organizations. The SSC had challenged the <br />No Surprises Rule and Permit Revocation Rule (PRR) aspects of the Clinton Administration on the <br />grounds that the rules violated the Administrative Procedures Act (AP A) and that the rules violated <br />the substantive meaning of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). <br /> <br />The Court reviewed the claims and arguments offered by the government and determined that <br />the Department of the Interior had violated the AP A through issuance of the PRR, and that since the <br />No Surprises Rule was inextricably tied to the PRR, that the No Surprises Rule also violated the <br />APA. Consequently, the Court ordered that the government must submit both proposed rules for <br />adequate notice and solicit public review and cormnent prior to finalization of the rules or <br />regulations. <br /> <br />I have included a copy of the Court's memorandum opinion for your review and information <br />in the Board folder. I might add that this decision does affect the preparation of the Lower Colorado <br />River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). It has always been the intent of the <br />LCR MSCP participants to obtain the coverage provided by the No Surprises Rule. Therefore, the <br />LCR MSCP Implementation Agreement will need to ensure that there is sufficient and explicit <br />language included to protect the participants from untimely permit revocation such that it provides <br /> <br />7 <br />