Mealey's Water Rights
-
August 17, 2018
10th Circuit Reverses Water Adjudication Ruling, Siding With 4 New Mexico Tribes
DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 15 reversed a district court’s ruling in a New Mexico water adjudication and remanded the case for entry of an order dismissing about 800 objections to a settlement (New Mexico, ex rel. State Engineer, et al. v. Nansy Carson, et al., No. 17-2147, 10th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22609).
-
August 17, 2018
Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Suspension Of Clean Water Rule Date
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A South Carolina federal judge on Aug. 16 issued a nationwide injunction against the Trump administration’s “Suspension Rule” that purportedly delays implementation of the Clean Water Rule until 2020 while a new rule is written (South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, et al. v. E. Scott Pruitt, et al., No. 18-330, D. S.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138595).
-
August 13, 2018
Supreme Court Replaces Special Master In Florida/Georgia Water Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 9 discharged Ralph I. Lancaster as the special master in Florida’s groundwater lawsuit against Georgia and appointed Senior Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals as the new special master (Florida v. Georgia, No. 142, Original, U.S. Sup.).
-
August 10, 2018
Unquantified Federal Water Rights Are Due No Recognition, Arizona High Court Says
PHOENIX — In a fractured ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court on Aug. 9 held that the state’s water law does not require the state water resources department to consider unquantified federal reserved water rights when it determines whether a developer has an adequate water supply (Robin Silver, M.D., et al. v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Company, et al., No. CV-16-0294-PR, Ariz. Sup., 2018 Ariz. LEXIS 226).
-
August 8, 2018
Multiplaintiff, Interstate Or Notable Water Rights Cases
New developments in the following multiplaintiff, interstate or notable water rights cases are marked in boldface type.
-
August 8, 2018
Texas, United States Answer New Mexico’s Counterclaims In High Court Water Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Texas and the United States on July 20 and July 23 answered counterclaims filed by New Mexico in its U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit involving alleged violations of the Rio Grande Compact (Texas v. New Mexico, et al., No. 141, Original, U.S. Sup.).
-
August 7, 2018
Tribes’ Suit Over Irrigation Water Transferred From California To Oregon
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on July 25 denied a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project and transferred a Native American tribe’s lawsuit against Reclamation to the Oregon federal court, saying the case has more in common with Oregon than California (Klamath Tribes v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, No. 18-3078, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124741).
-
August 7, 2018
United States Tells Another Court To Wait On Clean Water Rule Injunction
CINCINNATI — The United States on July 24 asked another federal court to hold in abeyance plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction against the Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States," 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054, June 29, 2015, saying the government’s subsequent Applicability Rule acts to delay the Clean Water Rule until 2020, by which time the government may have a replacement rule (Ohio, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 15-2467, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Div.).
-
August 7, 2018
California Water Wholesaler Must Pay Water Authority $28.67M, Judge Rules
SAN FRANCISCO — A California state court judge on July 25 ordered the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) to pay the San Diego County Water Authority $28.67 million plus interest for overcharging water transportation costs, with possibly more in restitution and attorney fees (San Diego County Water Authority v. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al., Nos. CPF-10-510830 and CPF-12-512466, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
-
August 7, 2018
Washington City Sues United States To Prevent Water Treatment Transfer
TACOMA, Wash. — The city of Port Angeles, Wash., on July 27 sued the United States for allegedly breaching a dam-removal law and memorandum of understanding by failing to address water quality problems that the city says is interfering with its water right (Port Angeles v. United States, et al., No. 18-5603, W.D. Wash., Tacoma).
-
August 6, 2018
Kansas, Colorado Sign $2M Settlement Of Republic River Compact Claims
The governors and attorneys general of Kansas and Colorado on Aug. 3 announced that they have signed an agreement to resolve Kansas’ claims about Colorado’s past use of water under the Republican River Compact.
-
August 2, 2018
States: Summary Judgment Warranted In North Dakota Clean Water Rule Case
BISMARCK, N.D. — Thirteen states on July 30 told a North Dakota federal court that it should grant their motion for summary judgment against the United States in their case challenging the legality and constitutionality of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054, June 29, 2015 (North Dakota, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 15-59, D. N.D.).
-
July 27, 2018
Texas Aquifer District Enjoined From Changing Water Rules Pending December Trial
UVALDE, Texas — A Texas state court on July 25 enjoined an aquifer authority from changing rules that a groundwater district and a farming couple say will affect its rights (Uvalde County Underground Water Conservation District, et al. v. Edwards Aquifer Authority, No. 2018-01-31972, Texas Dist., Uvalde Co.).
-
July 26, 2018
Washington Appeals Court Affirms Injunction Against Water Ballot Initiatives
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington state appeals panel on July 25 affirmed a trial court ruling enjoining an environmental political action committee from placing a ballot initiative that would require a public vote on large water use applications in the city of Tacoma, Wash. (Port of Tacoma, et al. v. Save Tacoma Water, et al., No. 49263-6-II, Wash. App., Div. II, 2018 Wash. App. LEXIS 1724).
-
July 23, 2018
Nebraska Supreme Court: Review Of Groundwater Issue Filed In Wrong Court
LINCOLN, Neb. — The Nebraska Supreme Court on July 20 affirmed dismissal of a groundwater appeal, finding that under the state’s Administrative Procedure Act, the petitioners filed their appeal in the wrong county court (Estate of Gerald Schluntz, et al. v. Lower Republican Natural Resources District, et al., No. S-17-970, Neb. Sup.).
-
July 18, 2018
United States To Court: Wait Until New Clean Water Rule Can Be Finalized
BISMARCK, N.D. — The United States on July 16 opposed a motion for summary judgment in a Clean Water Rule case in North Dakota federal court (North Dakota, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 15-59, D. N.D.).
-
July 18, 2018
California State Secretary Asks Congress Not To Limit WaterFix Litigation
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California’s secretary of natural resources on July 17 sent a letter to four congressmen opposing an appropriations bill rider that would preclude lawsuits involving the California WaterFix Project.
-
July 18, 2018
Multiplaintiff, Interstate Or Notable Water Rights Cases
New developments in the following multiplaintiff, interstate or notable water rights cases are marked in boldface type.
-
July 18, 2018
2 Environmental Groups Appeal Injunction Of Clean Water Rule
BRUNSWICK, Ga. — Two environmental groups on July 17 filed a notice that they will appeal the preliminary injunction a Georgia federal judge entered against the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015) (Georgia, et al. v. Scott Pruitt, et al., No. 15-79, S.D. Ga., Brunswick Div.).
-
July 17, 2018
Mississippi Tells Special Master That Groundwater Isn’t An Interstate Resource
CINCINNATI — Mississippi on July 6 urged a U.S. Supreme Court special master to deny a summary judgment motion by Tennessee and related defendants in an interstate groundwater dispute, saying the defendants erroneously premise their motion on the notion that the litigation involves one big aquifer instead of separate ones (Mississippi v. Tennessee, et al., No. 143, Original, U.S. Sup.).