NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on May 29 denied a motion by the United States to transfer a Clean Water Rule case to a Texas federal court, where defendants say a similar case has been pending since 2015 (New York, et al. v. E. Scott Pruitt, et al., No. 18-1030, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 18-1048, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88832).
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) on June 6 said it and two other conservation groups reached a settlement with the U.S. Forest Service to settle the groups’ appeal challenging a 30-year-old permit allowing Nestle Corp. to take water from the San Bernardino National Forest (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. U.S. Forest Services, et al., No. 16-56717, 9th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) on June 6 said it will vote again on July 10 on upping its contribution to the California WaterFix project from $4.3 billion to $10.8 billion after a two watchdog groups alleged that the board’s April vote violated California’s open meetings law because some members privately discussed the vote before casting ballots.
SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico federal magistrate judge on June 1 recommended that the court grant judgment to the United States and New Mexico in an ongoing water rights adjudication case after a related water and utility district failed to respond to a motion for judgment (United States v. A&R Products, et al., No. 01-72, D. N.M., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92939).
UVALDE, Texas — A Texas groundwater district on May 22 asked a state court for summary judgment against an aquifer authority, arguing that whatever circumstances the aquifer finds itself in, it lacks the authority to change rules that affect water to the district (Uvalde County Underground Water Conservation District, et al. v. Edwards Aquifer Authority, No. 2018-01-31972, Texas Dist., Uvalde Co.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California congressman on May 15 released a draft of the 2019 interior and environment funding bill that includes a section that would prohibit judicial review of California’s WaterFix project.
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A divided South Carolina Supreme Court on May 30 reconsidered plaintiffs’ argument that the state’s water policy for agricultural users violates the public trust doctrine but again found that the plaintiffs lack standing because the harm to public trust has not occurred and is speculative (James Jefferson Jowers Sr., et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, No. 2016-000428, S.C. Sup.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Six environmental groups on May 25 sued California’s Delta Stewardship Council, alleging that it ignored a 2016 court ruling and approved amendments to the so-called Delta Plan to facilitate twin tunnels for the state’s WaterFix project (Friends of the River, et al. v. Delta Stewardship Council, et al., No. n/a, Calif. Super., Sacramento Co.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — New Mexico on May 23 filed answers and counterclaims in the U.S. Supreme Court to Texas’ and the United States’ claim that New Mexico is violating the Rio Grande Compact by siphoning water below the Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico (Texas v. New Mexico, et al., No. 141, Original, U.S. Sup.).
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge overseeing a lawsuit over use of water in the Allatoona Lake Reservoir on May 23 stayed the case until May 30 after the parties told him that although “the prospects for settlement are not clear,” they planned to meet with a mediator on May 23 (Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 17-400, N.D. Ga., Atlanta Div.).
CINCINNATI — Three states on May 21 asked an Ohio federal court to issue an injunction against the 2015 Clean Water Rule, irrespective of the fact that the current administration has postponed the effective date of the rule and is engaged in the rule-making process for a replacement (Ohio, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al., No. 15-2467, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Div.).
CARSON CITY, Nev. — The Nevada Supreme Court on May 17 ruled that a district court must notify all water rights holders, including junior holders, of a possible curtailment order and not wait until after a preliminary show-cause hearing (Eureka County v. Seventh Judicial District Court of Nevada, No. 72317, Nev. Sup., 2018 Nev. LEXIS 39).
DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court on May 21 said that a water rights holder who thinks well owners are affecting surface water volume cannot bypass the state Ground Water Commission by going to a state water court to exclude wells in the area (Jim Hutton Educational Foundation v. Kevin Rein, No. 17SA5, Colo. Sup., 2018 Colo. LEXIS 380).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District on May 8 voted 4-3 to participate in the California WaterFix project, removing their October 2017 conditional approval if the project was scaled back in size and cost.
New developments in the following multiplaintiff, interstate or notable water rights cases are marked in boldface type.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Three cases concerning validation of and challenges to California’s WaterFix project were transferred April 13 to a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) (California Department of Water Resources v. All Persons Interested in the Matter, et al., No. 34-2017-00215965, Bay.org v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, No. 34-2017-80002695, North Delta Water Agency v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, No. 34-2017-80002725, Calif. Super., Sacramento Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California trial court presiding judge on April 24 appointed Judge Mary E. Wiss of the San Francisco County Superior Court to preside over a lawsuit between the San Diego County Water Authority (San Diego) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California after the original judge on April 23 disqualified himself (San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al., No. CPF-10-510830, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
SAN DIEGO — A California appeals court on April 12 affirmed a judgment that the joint owner of a water right committed disparagement of title when it sold the entire water right to a third party (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. CCG Ontario LLC, No. E065399, Calif. App., 4th Dist., 2nd Div., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2507).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California state court judge presiding over two interdistrict water rate cases on April 23 granted a motion by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Met) to disqualify himself from hearing remanded issues and said the cases will be reassigned to another judge (San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al., No. CPF-10-510830, In Re: San Diego County Water Authority, No. CPF-12-512466, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
CINCINNATI — The U.S. Supreme Court special master overseeing the interstate water dispute between Mississippi and Tennessee on April 12 issued a scheduling order that sets the date for an evidentiary hearing on Jan. 15 (Mississippi v. Tennessee, et al., No. 143, Original, U.S. Sup.).