Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002515 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. Review and discuss the proposed Fiscal Year 2004 budget for the GCD AMP; <br />. Status of Reclamation's Public Outreach strategy related to the Adaptive Management <br />Program; <br />. Reclamation will provide an overview of basin-wide hydrology and projected snow- <br />pack forecasts; and <br />. Issues related to reorganization of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center <br />within the U.S. Geological Survey. <br /> <br />Deftnders of Wildlife v. Norton, et al. <br /> <br />On June 28, 2000, Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) filed in the United States District Court <br />for the District of Columbia, a motion with the Court challenging Reclamation's continuing <br />operations of the Colorado River System and its impact on several endangered species within the <br />Republic of Mexico. This important case revolves around the issue of extra-territorial application <br />of the federal Endangered Species Act outside of the sovereign boundaries of the United States. <br /> <br />On January 10, 2003, Defenders filed with the Court, "additional exhibits" in support of its <br />motion for summary judgment. Defenders asserts that two recent actions by Reclamation reflect the <br />broad discretion that Reclamation has. First, plaintiffs point to a November 22, 2002, letter from <br />Secretary of the Interior Norton to the Governor of California allowing additional withdrawals of <br />Colorado River water in 2002 as evidence of discretion and second, the plaintiffs argue that the <br />Secretary has discretion because of her recent decision to limit California's diversion to the 4.4 <br />rnillion acre-feet per year specified by the "Law of the River." As a result, on January 21~; U.S. <br />District Court Judge James Robertson, issued an "Order" inviting the government and intervener- <br />defendants to respond to Plaintiffs Notice, by February 6, 2003. In his order, Judge Robertson raised <br />the issue of "the exact nature of the Bureau of Reclamation's exercise of its discretion over water <br />releases priorities higher than irrigation, domestic uses, and power under the Supreme Court's <br />injunction Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964), namely '[t]or river regulation, improvement <br />of navigation, and flood control. '" <br /> <br />In response to the Judge's order, the federal government, on February 6, 2003, filed its <br />response. In summary, it states that its discretion "... is limited to using the waters stored behind <br />Hoover Dam solely for uses "exclusively within the United States." The statute precludes the <br />delivery of any stored water to Mexico. The subsequent 1944 Treaty Between the United States of <br />America and Mexico, carved out a narrow exception to the Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) <br />allowing a limited use of the stored water to the extent that it was necessary to comply with <br />applicable provisions of the Treaty and provide the Mexican entitlement at the border. Once the <br />Treaty entitlement is satisfied, however, the United States is then bound by the 1928 BCP A, to limit <br />the delivery of water to beneficial uses "exclusively within the United States." <br /> <br />Four Amici briefs were filed by the other Basin States and water contractors. The four amici <br />briefs were filed by: 1) State of California; 2) Central Arizona Water Conservation District, <br />Coachella Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern <br />California, San Diego County Water Authority, and Arizona Power Authority; 3) State of Arizona, <br />Yuma Districts and the Salt River Project; and 4) Colorado River Commission of Nevada and <br /> <br />II <br />