WSP01529 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . species water releases was limited by existing federal statutes (e.g., San Juan-Chama Project Act, Middle Rio Grande Project, etc.), existing project and water service contracts pursuant to the 1902 Reclamation Act, language in interstate compacts (e.g., 1922 Colorado River Compact, and the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact). The U.S. District Court disagreed with this broad argument, and the 10th Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's earlier decision. In fact, the 10th Circuit relied on the sweeping language in the 1978 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee Valley Authority vs. Hill (437 U.S. 153) which stated that every federal agency must insure "that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered species or threatened species." The I Oth Circuit Court stepped through all of the defendants' arguments and distilled the following concepts: (I) under the principles of contract interpretation, the plain terms govern; (2) the contracts, written under Reclamation laws did envision applying subsequent legislation (i.e., the federal ESA) in their interpretation; and (3) the plain language of the "shortage clauses" provides the basis for Reclamation's retention of agency discretion to allocate available water supplies to comply with the ESA. New Mexico's senior U.S. Senator, Peter V. Domenici, stated recently that he did not believe that it was Congress' intent, and certainly not his intent, with the passage of the federal Endangered Species Act, to circumvent the role of the State in managing its water resources, nor to deprive lawfully obtained water service contract holders of their valuable rights. Senator Domenici indicated that he would likely introduce federal legislation to address this issue, and that he would look to his collegues in other western states for support. Lower Colorado Water Suoolv Proiect (LCWSP) . Pending applications - An application filed by Riverside County (County) requesting 1,265 acre-feet of water is still on hold pending resolution of the 16,000 acres on the Palo Verde Mesa to be served by PVID. It has been reported at previous Board meetings that if the County proposes to use LCWSP water on these lands, they must be excluded from PVID's service area before the CRB can process the application. I sent a letter to the County, in late June 2003, suggesting that the County initiate the process to remove its lands from PVID's service area so that the Board can process the application. . Blythe Energy Project - The Blythe Energy Project (BEP) with a consumptive use of 3,300 acre-feet has been considered a potential applicant to use the Project water. There have been discussions with BEP representatives and they have expressed an interest in receiving project water. Since participation of the BEP in the LCWSP has a bearing on implementation of the Project, the issue of water use by the BEP needs to be resolved as soon as possible. Reclamation has sent a letter to owners ofBEP indicating that the water being pumped from wells on the plant site is considered Colorado River water and requires a contract with Reclamation for its use. As an alternative, Reclamation suggested that the BEP could apply for LCWSP water. Should BEP apply for the Project water, the same issue as with the County related to PVID Mesa lands applies to BEP. It has been suggested that the easiest and fastest 8