WSP07372

• File Number: 8210.140.20.A
• Description: Colorado River - Colo River Basin - Orgs/Entities - CRBSF - California - Colo River Board of Calif
• State: CA
• Date: 6/10/2003
• Author: Gerald Zimmerman
• Title: Executive Directors Monthly Report to the Colorado River Board of California
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

.

.

"

to the Arizona Water Bank. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is
projected to divert 0.664 maf.

The preliminary end-of-year estimate for 2003 California agricultural consumptive use of
Colorado River water under the first three priorities and the sixth priority ofthe 1931 California Seven
Party Agreement is 3.833 maf. This estimate is based on the collective use througb April 2003 by the
Palo Verde Irrigation District, the Yuma Project Reservation Division (YPRD), the Imperiallnigation
District, and the Coachella Valley Water District. Figure I, found at the end ofthis report, depicts the
historic projected end-of-year agricultural use for tbe year.

Colorado River Operations

Navajo Nation vs. Department of the Interior

On March 14,2003, the Navajo Nation filed an action in tbe United States District Court for the
District of Arizona alleging that tbe Department of the Interior in its management of the Lower
Colorado River and by its actions, including, but not limited to, establishment oftbe Interim Surplus
Guidelines, failed to consider the water rights of the Navajo Nation or to protect the interests of the
Navajo Nation. In its action, the Navajo Nation is seeking relief for: I) breach of trust responsibility
in implementation of the Interim Surplus Guidelines; 2) breach of trust responsibility in the adoption
of the FEIR Implementation Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy and Related Federal
Actions; 3) breach of trust responsibility in the implementation of the Interstate Banking Regulations;
4) breach of trust responsibility in refusing to contract for delivery of Central Arizona Project water to
the Navajo Nation; 5) violation ofNEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act; and 6) a breach of
trust responsibility by failing to provide Colorado River water to meet the needs of the Navajo people.

Included in the Board folder, are the individual filings by the states of Arizona and Nevada and
the Southern Nevada Water Authority, for Motions to Intervene. In their defense, the parties state the
Plaintiffs Complaint is barred due to;

.

Failure to state a cause of action;
Statute oflimitations;
Equitable doctrine of Laches because of the Navajo Nation's delay in bringing action;
Res judicata and collateral estoppel because of the preclusive effect of the decrees in the
original jurisdiction of Arizona v. California;
Equitable estoppel because of Arizona's detrimental reliance on the actions of the
Secretary;
The plaintiffs failure to exhaust its administrative remedies;
Plaintiffs claim of relief could be interpreted as seeking an amendment to any of the
decrees of opinions in Arizona v. California, which Court lacks jurisdiction.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2