Archived Water News Headlines | Law and Litigation

The headlines and news stories in this archive date back to 2003 and 2004; accordingly, some of the links have decayed.

Gold mine plans upheld in Nevada suit by environmentalists (Las Vegas Sun, 4/1/04) - Officials for the largest gold producing company in the world claimed a significant legal victory over environmentalists who they accused of abusing the appeals process to thwart mining in Nevada. A lawyer for opponents of Newmont Mining Corp.'s proposed gold mine expansions in northern Nevada said Wednesday's federal court ruling will be appealed because it sets a dangerous precedent for enforcement of the Clean Water Act at mines across the West. The environmentalists' lawsuit claimed Denver-based Newmont's proposed expansion of an open pit mine and a new underground mine would send pollutants into the Humboldt River and drain billions of gallons of water from northern Nevada's high desert in violation of the Clean Water Act.

State Appellate Court Upholds Metropolitan's Water Allocation Formula in San Diego Authority's Appeal, affirming Superior Court Ruling Supporting "Preferential Rights" Procedures Never Used in Agency's 75-Year History (Business Wire, 3/25/04) - A California appellate court panel today upheld a superior court ruling supporting the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's interpretation of state law concerning "preferential rights" to water in shortages. The state law in question has never been invoked in Metropolitan's 75-year history, but the San Diego County Water Authority had challenged the district's longstanding interpretation as being illegal. The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco rejected the Water Authority's main argument that preferential rights were illegal, and said the Authority's other claims were "basically ... (a) rehash" of its superior court case.

In its complaint, the Water Authority -- one MWD's 26 member public agencies -- challenged the validity of Metropolitan's interpretation and application of section 135 of the Metropolitan Water District Act. The Water Authority later amended its complaint to name Metropolitan's 25 other member agencies as defendants. The parties all agreed to move the case to a neutral court in San Francisco. Under section 135 of the enabling charter, each MWD member public agency may have a preferential right to a percentage of Metropolitan's available water supplies based on a legislatively established formula. That percentage is equal to the ratio of each member agency's total accumulated payments to Metropolitan's capital costs and operating expenses compared to the total of all member agencies' payments toward those costs, specifically excepting payments for water purchases. As a result, a member agency's preferential right roughly equals its pro rata share of all tax assessments and other payments. In the event of a water supply shortage or drought, any MWD member agency can request that its preferential rights be invoked. However, since the statute was established in the MWD Act in 1931, Metropolitan's board of directors has never exercised it, even in response to statewide droughts in 1976-77 and 1987-92, choosing instead, under other authority, to allocate water according to need. In its complaint challenging MWD's interpretation of the preferential rights statute, the Water Authority claimed Metropolitan improperly allocates its member agencies' payments for the purpose of the preferential rights calculation. The Water Authority argued that since a significant portion of Metropolitan's water sales revenue goes toward capital costs and operating expenses, section 135 should include that revenue in the allocation formula.

Supreme Court dodges major decision on clean water rules (USA Today, 3/23/04) - The Supreme Court, sidestepping a major decision on the government's power to regulate clean water, told a Florida court Tuesday to reconsider a pollution dispute involving the Everglades. The ruling extends a six-year fight between the 500-member Miccosukee Indian tribe and a water district the Indians accuse of illegally dumping pollutants into Florida's Everglades. The South Florida Water Management District's pump west of Fort Lauderdale dumps as much as 423,000 gallons a minute of polluted runoff from suburban lawns, farms and industrial yards into the Everglades, including 189,000 acres the state leased to the tribe and promised to keep in its natural state. The district was sued in 1998 by the Miccosukees and Friends of the Everglades under the federal Clean Water Act. At issue was whether the district should be required to get permits for water pump facilities. District officials contend that they are only moving water that already has pollutants, protecting nearby areas from flooding, and didn't need special permits. The Bush administration, in supporting the district, argued to the Supreme Court that permits were not required when water from one navigable body was channeled into another navigable body of water. An appeals court had sided with the tribe and ordered the South Florida Water Management District to apply for permits. The Supreme Court on Tuesday voided that decision and ordered the lower court to reconsider the case and take the Bush administration argument into account.

Farmers sue state over new fees (The San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/25/04) - The California Farm Bureau Federation filed suit to block the state from collecting $50 million a year in new fees the Legislature imposed on rural landowners as part of last summer's budget agreement. The suit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, argues that the fees constitute a tax increase and therefore require a two-thirds vote approval by the Legislature. Officials at the Farm Bureau also argue there is connection between the cost of the services provided to the landowners and the fees they are being asked to pay – as required by state law before a fee can be imposed. One of the two fees in question provide reimbursement to the state for fire protection services provided in remote or rural areas. The other fee goes to help offset the state's cost in administrating water rights applications.

Colorado Parties Look at Legal Defense Agreement (The Steamboat Pilot & Today, 2/18/04) - Routt County, two municipalities and two water districts are considering forming a joint legal defense agreement as they evaluate the impacts of Steamboat Springs' filing for recreational water rights. The legal defense agreement would allow the five parties to share information that typically would be considered confidential between legal counsel and the clients. The agreement would be among the county, the towns of Yampa and Oak Creek, the Upper Yampa Water Conservation District and Morrison Creek Water and Sanitation District. In December, the city filed for a recreational water right, which would preserve the Yampa River's flow through Steamboat for recreational activities. Even before the filing, the parties had expressed concerns and urged the city to hold off on filing for rights until the various entities could discuss the decision.

Court hears Nevada’s case against nuclear waste dump (The Reno Gazette-Journal, 01/14/04) - Nevada officials claimed partial victory Wednesday after a federal appeals court heard its arguments that building the nation’s only high-level nuclear waste repository 90 miles outside Las Vegas could pose radiation hazards. The court did not hear Nevada’s arguments that water runs through Yucca Mountain’s geology faster than originally thought and could spread radiation. But the court said Nevada can argue this issue before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nevada attorney Joe Egan said the casks containing nuclear fuel in Yucca will corrode much faster than the Energy Department expects. Once the casks corrode, radiation will threaten local drinking water, he said.

Supreme Court takes up air, water pollution cases (Houston Chronicle, 01/14/04) - In cases involving the Florida Everglades and California smog, justices were considering whether lower courts were too protective of the environment. The Bush administration wants the high court to overturn both decisions. The water case argued is being closely watched by the nation's water managers. It pits the 500-member Miccosukee Indian tribe and an environmental group against a water district the Indians accuse of illegally dumping pollutants into Florida's Everglades.

Conservationists to Sue Klamath Hydro Operator (ENS - 9/8/03) - An Oregon conservation group intends to sue PacificCorp for operating two unscreened hydropower diversion canals at the south end of Upper Klamath Lake. Unscreened canals kill the lake's two endangered fish species, according to the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC), which sent the 60 day notice of intent to sue.

New Mexico's overwhelming water litigation results in creation of statewide water court (April, '03 - Government Newsletter; Reported 8/31/03) - This is a pdf file that opens in a new window.

Lawyers' field day: Defining just what it is that they do (Lucianne | Star-Ledger, 8/9/03) - The nation's largest lawyers group has adopted policies on hate crimes, the quality of legal representation death row inmates deserve, and Indian water rights.

Baker v. Motorola Class Action Settlement (Aug '03) - Mesa households will receive settlement payments for TCE-contaminated drinking water in a few months.

Water 104: Gila River Adjudication
By Steve Ayers, Administrative Aide, Yavapai County
Verde Valley Newspapers - August 7, 2003

People living in Prescott, Sedona, Camp Verde, Cottonwood and other central Arizona cities may be wondering whether they will be able to keep their wells. An administrative aide from Yavapai County summarizes the general adjudication proceedings in Arizona in "Water 104: Gila River Adjudication."

The general stream adjudication, whose full title is “The General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source,” is the most comprehensive judicial proceeding involving water ever initiated in Arizona. It is a legal action designed to determine, once and for all, who has the right to what and how much water in the Gila River system. Keep in mind that the Verde River flows into the Salt River and the Salt River flows into the Gila River. Therefore, our watershed is a tributary of the Gila River. The Gila adjudication has about 84,000 claims filed by about 24,000 parties and will affect every entity within the Gila River watershed that uses water, whether it be a lone residential well or the larger water systems owned by the cities, mines and farmers. [ more]