Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />On ApriJ 30, 1979, the EDF filed its motion for summary <br />judgment in the litigation, The defendants responded on <br />N <br />M:lo July 6, 1979, with their own motion, for summary judgment, a <br />N <br />~ brief in opposition to the plaintiffs motion, statement of <br />material facts and affidavits by selected state representa- <br />tives who serve on the Forum and EPA. Oral arguments on the <br />motions for summary judgment were held on August 10 in Wash- <br />ington. In a seventeen-page opinion, dated October 3, 1979, <br />Judge Flannery granted the defendants motion for summary <br />judgment on all six counts and denied the plaintiffs motion. <br />In essence, the suit dismisses all six claims brought by the <br />Plaintiffs, EDF. <br /> <br />Considerable time and effort was spent by the state <br />representatives in assisting the attorneys general in pre- <br />paration of technical information for the statements and <br />affidavits. <br /> <br />Outlook for Meeting Standards <br />in the Future <br /> <br />Flow-weighted annual salinity values at the lower main- <br />stem stations. in 1978 remained about the same as 1977. It <br />appears, based on available data, that salinity for 1979 may <br />increase slightly at Hoover and Parker Dams but remain the <br />same at Imperial Dam. <br />The federal salinity control program continues to fall <br />behind schedule a.lthough efforts are being made to expedite <br />the planning studies. The rate of water development has also <br /> <br />32 <br />