DOCSLIB.ORG

Rio Grandegrande Compactcompact Past,Past, Present,Present, Andand Futurefuture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rio Grandegrande Compactcompact Past,Past, Present,Present, Andand Futurefuture RioRio GrandeGrande CompactCompact Past,Past, Present,Present, andand FutureFuture PatrickPatrick R.R. GordonGordon CommissionerCommissioner JuneJune 17,17, 20082008 LawsLaws ofof thethe RioRio GrandeGrande TreatyTreaty’’ss withwith MexicoMexico 19061906 ConventionConvention –– RioRio GrandeGrande aboveabove FortFort QuitmanQuitman 19441944 TreatyTreaty –– RioRio GrandeGrande BelowBelow FortFort QuitmanQuitman RioRio GrandeGrande CompactCompact CongressionalCongressional AuthorizationsAuthorizations FloodFlood ControlControl ActAct ofof 19601960 (86(86--645)645) SanSan JuanJuan--ChamaChama ProjectProject (87(87--483)483) CochitiCochiti PermanentPermanent PoolPool (88(88--293)293) StateState WaterWater LawLaw TheThe RioRio GrandeGrande CompactCompact EnteredEntered betweenbetween Colorado,Colorado, NewNew MexicoMexico andand TexasTexas inin 19381938 EquitablyEquitably apportionsapportions thethe waterswaters ofof thethe RioRio GrandeGrande aboveabove FortFort Quitman,Quitman, TexasTexas AnnualAnnual DeliveryDelivery RequirementsRequirements Colorado’s delivery point is the New Mexico state line Since 1949, New Mexico’s delivery point is Elephant Butte Reservoir 57% of the “Texas” Supply is consumed in New Mexico CompactCompact AdministrationAdministration ColoradoColorado CommissionerCommissioner -- StateState EngineerEngineer NewNew MexicoMexico CommissionerCommissioner –– StateState EngineerEngineer TexasTexas CommissionerCommissioner –– AppointedAppointed byby thethe GovernorGovernor TechnicalTechnical andand legallegal supportsupport providedprovided toto eacheach CommissionerCommissioner TheThe CommissionCommission meetsmeets annuallyannually toto conductconduct itit’’ss business.business. SpecialSpecial meetingsmeetings maymay bebe calledcalled toto addressaddress issues.issues. RioRio GrandeGrande BasinBasin WaterWater SupplySupply RioRio GrandeGrande flowsflows –– NativeNative waterswaters ImportedImported waterswaters ClosedClosed BasinBasin ProjectProject -- ColoradoColorado TransTrans--mountainmountain waterwater –– ColoradoColorado SanSan JuanJuan--ChamaChama ProjectProject –– NewNew MexicoMexico RioRio GrandeGrande CompactCompact ImplicationsImplications Compact apportions native flows between Colorado, New Mexico and Texas Provides an opportunity for development of waters from outside the basin Provides an opportunity to construct new reservoirs after approval of the Compact RioRio GrandeGrande CompactCompact ImplicationsImplications continuedcontinued Provides for a detailed water accounting to ensure native water deliveries are not impacted Specific Compact provisions related to post- compact reservoirs Article VII Rio Grande Compact - 400kaf restriction Article VIII Rio Grande Compact - Release from reservoirs when in debt Rio Grande Compact Compliance New Mexico 1940 - 2006 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 January 1, 2007 Credit = 180,100 AF -300 Status in Thousands ofAF Status Thousands in -400 -500 -600 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Time (Calendar Years) ColoradoColorado AccruedAccrued Credit/DebitCredit/Debit Colorado Accrued Credit/Debit Yearly credit/debit Accrued credit/debit 400 200 0 -200 -400 Thousand Acre-Feet Thousand -600 -800 -1000 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005* Year HistoricHistoric LitigationLitigation 19511951 -- NewNew MexicoMexico’’ss accruedaccrued debtdebt hadhad reachedreached 330,000330,000 acreacre--feet.feet. TexasTexas filedfiled suitsuit inin thethe U.U. S.S. SupremeSupreme CourtCourt againstagainst NewNew MexicoMexico andand MiddleMiddle RioRio GrandeGrande ConservancyConservancy District.District. Dismissed because U. S. was not included as an “indispensable party”. 19661966 -- ColoradoColorado’’ss accruedaccrued debtdebt hadhad reachedreached 900,000900,000 acreacre--feet.feet. TexasTexas andand NewNew MexicoMexico filedfiled suitsuit inin thethe U.U. S.S. SupremeSupreme Court.Court. Case was stayed in 1968 on condition that Colorado would meet it’s annual delivery requirements, which it did. Lawsuit was dismissed in 1985 when Elephant Butte spilled, eliminating Colorado’s remaining debt. CurrentCurrent ActivitiesActivities New Mexico’s pilot channel at Elephant Butte Saves approximately 15,000 acre-feet of water annually Endangered species Rio Grande silvery minnow Located above Elephant ButteButte inin NewNew MexicoMexico Impacts water deliveries and operations - minimum flows Reintroduction in Big Bend area of Texas as experimental non-essential population Southwestern willow flycatcher Located within conservation pool at Elephant Butte PilotPilot ChannelChannel LocationLocation MapMap Approximate Phase 3 Work Area AA CompletedCompleted PortionPortion ofof thethe PilotPilot ChannelChannel (looking(looking South)South) RioRio GrandeGrande SilverySilvery MinnowMinnow ReservoirReservoir OperationsOperations Operations must be in compliance with the Rio Grande Compact Operations must be in compliance with federal authorizations Water use must be in compliance with federal authorizations and state water laws RioRio GrandeGrande -- WhereWhere AreAre WeWe Going?Going? EarlyEarly historyhistory ofof irrigationirrigation SanSan LuisLuis ValleyValley ofof ColoradoColorado MiddleMiddle RioRio GrandeGrande ofof NewNew MexicoMexico RioRio GrandeGrande ProjectProject GrowingGrowing municipalmunicipal demandsdemands AlbuquerqueAlbuquerque ElEl PasoPaso JuarezJuarez RecreationRecreation demandsdemands IsIs therethere FlexibilityFlexibility Rio Grande Compact Commission can accommodate certain deviations Relinquishment of credit water PL86-645 Flood Control Operations Conservation water agreement Changes to federal authorizations require Congressional action CanCan ThereThere BeBe MoreMore FlexibilityFlexibility Coordination/cooperation between the states and federal agencies Coordinated releases of water from upstream to downstream Formal operating plan for Elephant Butte Reservoir How provisions of the Compact are interpreted Definition of “Project Storage” …storage below Elephant Butte…. “Usable Water” …release in accordance with irrigation demands… StorageStorage ElephantElephant ButteButte andand CaballoCaballo ReservoirsReservoirs areare thethe keykey reservoirreservoir componentscomponents ofof thethe RioRio GrandeGrande Project.Project. ElephantElephant ButteButte servesserves asas thethe deliverydelivery pointpoint forfor NewNew Mexico,Mexico, andand thethe reservoirreservoir alsoalso retainsretains anyany ““creditscredits”” oror ““debitsdebits”” accruedaccrued byby ColoradoColorado andand NewNew MexicoMexico underunder Compact.Compact. RIO GRANDE PROJECT ConclusionsConclusions Changing water demands will require more flexibility Municipal needs, environmental needs, variations in water supply Changes must be within the terms of the Rio Grande Compact No State supports changing the Rio Grande Compact We’ve found ways to address issues before - I think we can and will continue Texas will require that it’s Compact entitlement be delivered - but is open to flexible options which do not impact our water supplies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rio Grande Compact Commission Records, MS406, C
    Guide to MS 406 Rio Grande Compact Commission records 1939-1968 3 linear feet Processed by Eva Ross, 2009 and edited by Claudia Rivers, 2012 Transferred to the UTEP Library by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission as part of the Texas Regional Historical Resources Depository Program. TSLAC accession number 1999/193 Citation: Rio Grande Compact Commission records, 1939-1968, MS406, C.L. Sonnichsen Special Collections Department. The University of Texas at El Paso Library. C.L. Sonnichsen Special Collections Department University of Texas at El Paso MS406 Historical Sketch: Formed as a result of the interstate compact signed by the states of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas in 1938 and approved by Congress, the Texas commission’s goal is to implement the compact by assuring the equitable apportioning of waters from the Rio Grande Basin. Past Commissioners include Frank B. Clayton, Julian P. Harrison, J. E. Quaid, Louis A. Scott, and Joe Hanson. Commissioner as of June, 2012 is Patrick Gordon. Arrangement: No series description has been determined. The files include rules and minutes, correspondence, project reports, water deliveries, Colorado debits, and stream gaging stations. Arrangement is roughly chronological within each grouping of folders. Scope and Content Notes: Contains correspondence, reports, tables, maps, and photographs that reflect the activities of the Texas office of the Rio Grande Compact Commission. Provenance Statement: Picked up by Special Collections staff from the Rio Grande Compact Commission office in El Paso at the request of Commissioner Joe Hanson in August 1999 from Tammy Beeman, his secretary. The official transfer reads “non-current files of historical interest” and was approved by Chris LaPlante, State Archivist.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Rio Grande Compact of 1938
    The Rio Grande Compact: Douglas R. Littlefield received his bache- Its the Law! lors degree from Brown University, a masters degree from the University of Maryland and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1987. His doc- toral dissertation was entitled, Interstate The History of the Water Conflicts, Compromises, and Com- Rio Grande pacts: The Rio Grande, 1880-1938. Doug Compact heads Littlefield Historical Research in of 1938 Oakland, California. He is a research histo- rian and consultant for many projects throughout the nation. Currently he also is providing consulting services to the U.S. Department of Justice, Salt River Project in Arizona, Nebraska Department of Water Resources, and the City of Las Cruces. From 1984-1986, Doug consulted for the Legal Counsel, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, on the history of Rio Grande water rights and interstate apportionment disputes between New Mexico and Texas for use in El Paso v. Reynolds. account for its extraordinary irrelevancy, Boyd charged, by concluding that it was written by a The History of the congenital idiot, borrowed for such purpose from the nearest asylum for the insane. Rio Grande Compact Boyds remarks may have been intemperate, but nevertheless, they amply illustrate how heated of 1938 the struggle for the rivers water supplies had become even as early as the turn of the century. And Boyds outrage stemmed only from battles Good morning. I thought Id start this off on over water on the limited reach of the Rio Grande an upbeat note with the following historical extending just from southern New Mexicos commentary: Mesilla Valley to areas further downstream near Mentally and morally depraved.
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Compact Commission Report
    3 RIO GRANDE COMPACT COMMISSION REPORT RIO GRANDE COMPACT The State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, and the State of Texas, desiring to remove all causes of present and future controversy among these States and between citizens of one of these States and citizens of another State with respect to the use of the waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman, Texas, and being moved by considerations of interstate comity, and for the purpose of effecting an equitable apportionment of such waters, have resolved to conclude a Compact for the attainment of these purposes, and to that end, through their respective Governors, have named as their respective Commissioners: For the State of Colorado M. C. Hinderlider For the State of New Mexico Thomas M. McClure For the State of Texas Frank B. Clayton who, after negotiations participated in by S. O. Harper, appointed by the President as the representative of the United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles, to- wit: ARTICLE I (a) The State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, the State of Texas, and the United States of America, are hereinafter designated “Colorado,” “New Mexico,” “Texas,” and the “United States,” respectively. (b) “The Commission” means the agency created by this Compact for the administration thereof. (c) The term “Rio Grande Basin” means all of the territory drained by the Rio Grande and its tributaries in Colorado, in New Mexico, and in Texas above Fort Quitman, including the Closed Basin in Colorado. (d) The “Closed Basin” means that part of the Rio Grande Basin in Colorado where the streams drain into the San Luis Lakes and adjacent territory, and do not normally contribute to the flow of the Rio Grande.
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Compact Violations
    RIO GRANDE COMPACT VIOLATIONS VIOLATION New Mexico’s ever increasing water use and groundwater pumping below Elephant Butte Reservoir (EBR) deprives Texas of water apportioned to it under the 1938 Rio Grande Compact (Compact). OVERVIEW The Rio Grande Project (Project) serves the Las Cruces, New Mexico and El Paso, Texas areas and includes Elephant Butte Reservoir. Federal legislation provides for Project water to be allocated 57 percent to Project Lands within New Mexico and 43 percent to Project Lands in Texas. Two districts receive this Project Water—Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) in New Mexico and El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (EP #1) in Texas. A 1938 contract among EBID, EP #1 and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) reflects the 57 percent–43 percent division. The City of El Paso obtains about 50% of its water from EP#1's allocation. The Compact apportions the waters of the Rio Grande among the signatory states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The Compact apportions all of the water that New Mexico delivers into Elephant Butte Reservoir to Texas, subject to the United States’ Treaty obligation to Mexico and the United States’ Project Contract with EBID in New Mexico. The Compact sought to maintain the status quo as it existed in 1938 utilizing the Rio Grande Project as a means to insure that this occurred. ISSUE Texas is deprived of water apportioned to it in the Compact because New Mexico has authorized and permitted wells that have been developed near the Rio Grande in New Mexico. These wells (estimated at over 3,000) pump as much as 270,000 acre-feet of water annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing the Colorado River and the Rio Grande: Cooperation and Conflict with Mexico
    Sharing the Colorado River and the Rio Grande: Cooperation and Conflict with Mexico December 12, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45430 {222A0E69-13A2-4985-84AE-73CC3DFF4D02}-R-065134085251065165027250227152136081055238021128244192097047169070027044111226189083158176100054014174027138098149076081229242065001223143228213208120077243222253018219014073197030033204036098221153115024066109133181160249027233236220178084 SUMMARY R45430 Sharing the Colorado River and the December 12, 2018 Rio Grande: Cooperation and Conflict with Nicole T. Carter Specialist in Natural Mexico Resources Policy The United States and Mexico share the waters of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande. A bilateral water treaty from 1944 (the 1944 Water Treaty) and other binational agreements guide Stephen P. Mulligan how the two governments share the flows of these rivers. The binational International Boundary Legislative Attorney and Water Commission (IBWC) administers these agreements. Since 1944, the IBWC has been the principal venue for addressing river-related disputes between the United States and Mexico. The 1944 Water Treaty authorizes the IBWC to develop rules and to issue proposed decisions, Charles V. Stern called minutes, regarding matters related to the treaty’s execution and interpretation. Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Water Delivery Requirements Established in Binational Agreements. The United States’ and Mexico’s water-delivery obligations derive from multiple treaty sources and vary depending on the body of water. Under the 1944 Water Treaty, the United States is required to provide Mexico with 1.5 million acre-feet (AF) of Colorado River water annually. The 1944 Water Treaty also addresses the nations’ respective rights to waters of the Rio Grande downstream of Fort Quitman, TX. It requires Mexico to deliver to the United States an annual minimum of 350,000 AF of water, measured in five-year cycles (i.e., 1.75 million AF over five years).
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Rio Grande Reservoirs in New Mexico: Legislation and Litigation
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Law of the Rio Chama The Utton Transboundary Resources Center 2007 History of the Rio Grande Reservoirs in New Mexico: Legislation and Litigation Susan Kelly UNM School of Law, Utton Center Iris Augusten Joshua Mann Lara Katz Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/uc_rio_chama Recommended Citation Kelly, Susan; Iris Augusten; Joshua Mann; and Lara Katz. "History of the Rio Grande Reservoirs in New Mexico: Legislation and Litigation." (2007). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/uc_rio_chama/28 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Utton Transboundary Resources Center at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law of the Rio Chama by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. SUSAN KELLY, IRIS AUGUSTEN, JOSHUA MANN & LARA KATZ* History of the Rio Grande Reservoirs in New Mexico: Legislation and Litigation" ABSTRACT Nearly all of the dams and reservoirson the Rio Grandeand its tributaries in New Mexico were constructed by the federal government and were therefore authorized by acts of Congress. These congressionalauthorizations determine what and how much water can be stored, the purposesfor which water can be stored, and when and how it must be released. Water may be storedfor a variety of purposes such as flood control, conservation storage (storing the natural flow of the river for later use, usually municipal or agricultural),power production, sediment controlfish and wildlife benefits, or recreation. The effect of reservoir operations derived from acts of Congress is to control and manage theflow of rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Rio Grande Compact Commission by USFWS
    Report to the Rio Grande Compact Commission U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Activities in the Rio Grande Basin Calendar Year 2020 Releasing RGSM into the Rio Grande, NM U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region 2 P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1306 Prepared by Shawn Sartorius, Field Office Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 8, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Activities in the Rio Grande Basin ............................................... 1 Endangered Species Act Consultations .......................................................................................... 1 Implementation of the 2016 BiOp for MRG Water Ops and Maintenance .................................... 1 Federally-Listed and Candidate Species Updates ........................................................................... 1 Endangered Rio Grande Silvery Minnow ................................................................................... 1 Upper/Middle Rio Grande Basin ................................................................................................. 1 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Rescue and Salvage ................................................................... 2 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Augmentation and Monitoring .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Rio Grande Compact the State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico
    The Rio Grande Compact: RIO GRANDE COMPACT Its the Law! The State of Colorado, the State of New Mexico, (g) Annual Debits are the amounts by which and the State of Texas, desiring to remove all causes actual deliveries in any calendar year fall below of present and future controversy among these States scheduled deliveries. and between citizens of one of these States and The Rio citizens of another State with respect to the use of the (h) Annual Credits are the amounts by which Grande waters of the Rio Grande above Fort Quitman, Texas, actual deliveries in any calendar year exceed sched- Compact and being moved by considerations of interstate uled deliveries. comity, and for the purpose of effecting an equitable apportionment of such waters, have resolved to (i) Accrued Debits are the amounts by which conclude a Compact for the attainment of these the sum of all annual debits exceeds sum of all annual purposes, and to that end, through their respective credits over any common period of time. Governors, have named as their respective Commis- sioners: (j) Accrued Credits are the amounts by which the sum of all annual credits exceeds the sum of all For the State of Colorado M.C. Hinderlider annual debits over any common period of time. For the State of New Mexico Thomas M. McClure For the State of Texas Frank B. Clayton (k) Project Storage is the combined capacity of Elephant Butte Reservoir and all other reservoirs who, after negotiations participated in by S.O. actually available for the storage of usable water Harper, appointed by the President as the \representa- below Elephant Butte and above the first diversion to tive of the United States of America, have agreed lands of the Rio Grande Project, but not more than a upon the following articles, to-wit: total of 2,638,860 acre feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Deliveries Under the Rio Grande Compact
    Volume 14 Issue 2 Spring 1974 Spring 1974 Water Deliveries under the Rio Grande Compact S. E. Reynolds Philip B. Mutz Recommended Citation S. E. Reynolds & Philip B. Mutz, Water Deliveries under the Rio Grande Compact, 14 Nat. Resources J. 201 (1974). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol14/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. WATER DELIVERIES UNDER THE RIO GRANDE COMPACT' by 3 S. E. Reynolds2 and Philip B. Mutz A review of the record of the deliveries of the States of Colorado 4 and New Mexico and the releases of water from project storage under the Rio Grande Compact between the States of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas may be of interest to students of the practical aspects of interstate water compacts. Plate I illustrates those records. The accrued credits,' or accrued debits,6 of the State of Colorado and the State of New Mexico at the end of each calendar year as determined at the following regular meeting of the Rio Grande Com- pact Commission are plotted on Plate I. The amount of water re- leased from project storage for beneficial use in New Mexico and Texas and for delivery to Mexico under the Mexican Treaty of 1906' during the calendar year indicated is also plotted. Perhaps the most striking feature of Plate I is its illustration of the fact that both Colorado and New Mexico have been in a debit status during most of the time since the Compact became effective.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of the Rio Grande Compact of 1938
    Volume 14 Issue 2 Spring 1974 Spring 1974 Development of the Rio Grande Compact of 1938 Raymond A. Hill Recommended Citation Raymond A. Hill, Development of the Rio Grande Compact of 1938, 14 Nat. Resources J. 163 (1974). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol14/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. natural resources iournal Published four times a year by The University of New Mexico School of Law Vol. 14 April 1974 No. 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIO GRANDE COMPACT OF 1938 RAYMOND A. HILL Thirty-six years have elapsed since the Rio Grande Compact of 1938, N.M.S.A. Section 75-34-3 (Repl. 1968), was entered into by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, and approved by the United States of America. Administration of the Compact since then has been the responsibility of many different persons, few of whom had personal knowledge of the circumstances of the negotiation of this Compact. Consequently, there has been a growing tendency towards interpretation of some of the provisions of the Rio Grande Compact in a manner contrary to the intent of those who participatedin its negotiation. Mr. Hill was intimately connected with the investigations that led to the Compact and with the negotiations of the Compact itself He continued his connection in its administration throughout the year since 1938.
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Recovery Plan
    RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW RECOVERY PLAN DRAFT DR AFT RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW (Hybognathus amarus) RECOVERY PLAN Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Regional Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: DR AFT Disclaimer/Literature Citation Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans published by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Services. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Services. Objectives of the plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. They represent the official position of the-National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator/ Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. By approving this document, the Director/Regional Director/Assistant Administrator certifies that the data used in its development represents the best scientific and commercial data available at the time it was written.
    [Show full text]
  • January 17, 2020 Christopher M
    FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH January 17, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 18-2153 UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant - Appellee, and MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, Intervenor Defendant - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (D.C. NO. 1:14-CV-00666-RB-SCY) Samantha Ruscavage-Barz (Steven Sugarman, Cerillos, New Mexico, with her on the briefs), WildEarth Guardians, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for Appellant. Michael T. Gray, Attorney (Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Robert J. Lundman and Andrew A Smith, Attorneys, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Melanie Casner, M. Leeann Summer and Elizabeth Pitrolo, Attorneys, United States Army Corps of Engineers, with him on the brief), Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellee. Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge. This is yet another episode in the story over the Rio Grande. In the arid southwest, the Rio Grande is one of only a handful of rivers that create crucial habitat for plants, animals, and humans. And it is a fact of life that not enough water exists to meet the competing needs. Recognizing these multiple uses, Congress has authorized the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain a balance between the personal, commercial, and agricultural needs of the people in New Mexico’s Middle Rio Grande Valley and the competing needs of the plants and animals.
    [Show full text]