MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
All-American Canal Lining to go Forward.
The U.S. 9th Circuit court of Appeals has lifted the restraining order and ruled that the Canal Lining can go forward immediately. They specifically
quoted authorizing legislation passed by Congress last year. Although the Mexican Government and the U.S. group opposing the lining have said they
will continue to appeal first to the 9th Circuit for a re-hearing by the full court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, their chances of success are
considered slim.
Because of the delay, the anticipated cost of the project has gone up by Approximately $25 Million.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64854
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Bill, what's the story on this project?
Why would the lining project be stopped by the 9th Court (this ought to be good!)?
Lining is to save water loss throught the 100 year old canal, correct?
Will the 9th Court judge pay the 25 million dollars?
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
The water that seeps out is used by the Mexican farmers for their crops. If the canal is lined their water supply is greatly reduced.
|
|
|
Bajafun777
Super Nomad
Posts: 1103
Registered: 9-13-2006
Location: Rosarito & California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying Life with Wife In Mexico, Easy on The Easy
|
|
All American canal lining----------------
Well, the groups that opposed this lining has connections in the Mexicali Valley and do not think it is just the mexican farmers that want the lining
stopped. We had a lot of big farmers jump over and start operations of farming in the Mexicali area for a number of years and they have money and
power. Now the Mexico government also has not closed the door on this as they also use this water as they only get the tail end of the what goes in
from the Colorado. By treaty they have rights to some of this water but the real thing to come is what will the legislature do about it??? They can
trump the 9th Circuit, remember this is the most overturned courts we have. Additionally, the legislature also has to consider San Diego just keeps
building and growing and wanting more water. Our concern here in Imperial Valley is not to become another Owens Valley and have all of our water
stolen. So the beat goes on, people can share but people are also greedy. Kindness is often mistaken for weakness and those wanting what others have
is constant. Imperial Valley is the life line in producing food for the United States and we can not let this go away as it will only weaken the
United States. When we start totally depending on other countries for our food we are in for another kind of nightmare, kind of makes you think of
oil huh??? Later-----------bajafun777
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
So Sorry, No Trump.
The State Legislature has NO power to trump anything in this agreement since it has been ratified into Federal Water Rights Law.
Here is the 9th Circuit Opinion if anyone is interested to that detail. It will have to be cut and pasted in its entirety.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BCF4DDBC174...
The Plaintiffs are:
Consejo de Desarrollo Economica de Mexicali, A.C.
Citizens United for Resources and the Environment
Desert Citizens Against Pollution
State of California Band of Mission Indians
Defendents:
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Imperial Irrigation District
San Diego County Water District.
There is NO valid claim (under Treaty) on any of this water by Mexico. The United States is complying with the treaty requirements
for delivery of Colorado River Water to Mexico. As I read the early arguments on this issue, the position of the Mexican government was that it had
been allowed to go on for so long, that it established "Rights" on their part to the leakage that appeared in their acquifers. It
was never thought that the courts would accept that reasoning. Some expert opinion surmised that the Mexican Government hoped by applying pressure to
gain assistance from the Administration. However, the States Water Rights under Federal Law clearly established the right of San Diego and the
Imperial Valley to do this and it was supported by the other State Colorado River Water users because it would make more water available to them.
As a result of this getting tied up in the U.S. Appelate system, the U.S. Congress crafted an Authorizing Amendment signed into law by President Bush
to specifically address Plaintiff Claims. The Appelate Court was obliged by the new legislation to take the action they did.
It is a shame that the Losing Party can't be gigged for that additional $25 Million, but it will come from the taxpayers.
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
I do see some marginal validity to Mexico's claim. But I am only familiar with state water law in Montana, a long way from Mexico. Montana law, which
is similar to the law in other western states, does have a "use it or lose it" provision: rights to water which is not used are lost, and that water
may be claimed by others. So Mexico could claim the the water in question has not been used for the intended "beneficial use" by the canal operators;
instead it was allowed to leak out, and was used for a "beneficial use" by Mexican farmers.
An interesting question is whether the beneficiaries of the seepage could claim the water if they were across an international boundary.
But was this case decided on the merits of the law at the time of the case being filed, or was it decided by legislation in Congress? Can you hold the
plaintiffs responsible for the $25 million if the rules were changed in the middle of the game? Otherwise they may have won this case. If a victory by
the plaintiffs was not a possibility, why the congressional intervention?
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
The WHY !
Without spending additional time investigating the details of the case and the system, One probably need go no farther than the fact that it was the
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holding up the process.
Not wishing to be superficial, I have just finished reading the opinion and doing so reaffirmed my original thought.
The 9th Circuit was taking all sorts of claims under consideration that should have been settled law. What Congress did last year was say that the
Project was to proceed immediately as being the most satisfactory of (3) options directed in a 1994 act to conserve the water lost through seepage.
It also affirmed that the Colorado River Treaty of 1944 with Mexico outlined ALL claims to water that Mexico might have and they were
entitled to no waters in addition to that agreement. Additionally, the 2006 legislation specifically exempted the Lining Project from any
Environmental claims since the court had been considering various Environmentalists objections to the project. Congress is (as noted) empowered to
exempt specific projects so long as it does so in a lawful manner.
Basically, the Congressional action was a "Slapdown" of the Appeals Court and the ongoing (costly) delays. Not the first time that the most-reversed
Court Circuit in the U.S. has been "Slapped".
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
