|
|
|
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES |
|
ACTION |
|
Department: |
|
Safe & Prosperous |
X |
Motion |
|
City Attorney |
|
Active & Appealing |
|
Resolution |
|
|
X |
Respected & Responsible |
|
Ordinance - Introduction |
|
Division: |
|
Connected & Engaged |
|
Ordinance - Adoption |
|
Administration |
|
Unique & Creative |
|
Public Hearing |
TITLE:
title
Authorize Legal Action to Enforce Judgment in Mohave County, et al. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, et al.
end
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Summary Recommendation
Authorize and approve the City of Yuma’s participation in litigation to enforce the judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in Mohave County, et al. (Mohave County, La Paz County, Yuma County, and City of Yuma) v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, et al., concerning Greenstone Acquisitions’ (dba GSC Farm, LLC) fourth-priority Colorado River water transfer. The City’s participation would be pursuant to a joint representation agreement with Clark Hill, PLC, Phoenix, Arizona, together with Mohave County, La Paz County, and Yuma County. (Deputy City Attorney) (Rodney Short)
end
STRATEGIC OUTCOME:
Enforcing the judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in the litigation involving the City of Yuma and similarly situated communities on the Colorado River in Mohave County, La Paz County, and Yuma County regarding the environmental effects of a permanent transfer of Colorado River water aligns with City Council’s strategic outcome of Respected and Responsible.
REPORT:
Greenstone Acquisitions (dba GSC Farm, LLC) acquired farmland in La Paz County with a Colorado River diversion water entitlement of 2,913.30 acre-feet (AF) for irrigation use. Greenstone Acquisitions subsequently proposed to permanently assign and transfer the estimated consumptive use of the Colorado River entitlement to the Town of Queen Creek, Arizona (“Permanent Transfer”).
The Arizona counties along the Colorado River and many of the towns and cities on the Colorado River, including the City of Yuma, as well as almost all of the agricultural operations in Yuma’s water districts, opposed Greenstone Acquisitions’ Permanent Transfer, both on the legal merits (the “Law of the River”) and the potential deleterious environmental effects of the Permanent Transfer.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation (“USBR”) commenced an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to consider the environmental impacts of Greenstone Acquisitions’ Permanent Transfer on the human environment, including the physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources that could be affected by the Greenstone Acquisitions’ Permanent Transfer.
The City Council of the City of Yuma submitted comments to USBR regarding the EA, identifying concerns regarding the potential adverse effects of the Permanent Transfer on the citizens of the City of Yuma and the surrounding Yuma area and asserting that the proposed Permanent Transfer did not comply with NEPA. The City Council also urged USBR to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) to adequately evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Permanent Transfer.
On September 2, 2022, USBR issued an opinion finding that Greenstone Acquisitions’ Permanent Transfer “does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” and, therefore, an EIS is not required. USBR’s opinion determination did not adequately address the concerns raised regarding the environmental effects of the Permanent Transfer or explain why an EIS was not necessary under NEPA.
Following USBR’s opinion, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors affirmatively voted to engage the services of the Clark Hill law firm and “authorize Clark Hill to initiate a legal action against [USBR] and any appropriate parties challenging [USBR’s] final EA of the potential environmental effects from the Town of Queen Creek’s proposed GSC Farm, LLC [Greenstone Acquisitions’] water partial assignment and transfer, and direct staff to communicate with other affected entities about joining the action.” The Yuma City Council joined that federal litigation through City Council Motion MC 2022-228.
In 2024, after more than a year of litigation, the federal District Court entered judgment in favor of the Mohave County, La Paz County, Yuma County, and the City of Yuma and ordered the USBR to prepare an EIS. Upon reconsideration, the Court allowed the contracts for the water transfer from GSC Farm to Queen Creek to continue while USBR went through the EIS process and left the Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in place in the interim. USBR did not appeal that judgment. The matter is identified as Case No. CV-22-08246-PCT-MTL.
Following remand, USBR published a notice in the Federal Register that it was going to prepare an EIS and examine the two issues required by the District Court. During various ensuing scoping meetings, however, USBR stated it will not examine the two issues ordered by the District Court based on subsequent U.S. Supreme Court authority and based on post-2020 revisions to the NEPA regulations.
As a result, USBR appears unwilling to conduct the analysis required by the District Court’s judgment and order concerning issues that were previously litigated and decided by the Court. This position effectively leaves USBR’s prior FONSI analysis as the final analysis of those issues and raises concerns regarding USBR’s compliance with the Court’s judgment and order.
Mohave County is moving forward with litigation and has asked the City of Yuma, as well as Yuma County and La Paz County to join the action and agree to be jointly represented by Clark Hill and split the costs evenly between the entities up to a maximum cap of $100,000.00. Approving this motion authorizes and directs the City of Yuma to enter joint representation and litigate to enforce the federal Court’s judgment subject to the $100,000.00 cap from the City of Yuma described above.
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS:
|
CITY FUNDS: |
$ 100,000.00 |
BUDGETED: |
$ 100,000.00 |
|
STATE FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER: |
$ 0.00 |
|
FEDERAL FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
IN CONTINGENCY: |
$ 0.00 |
|
OTHER SOURCES: |
$ 0.00 |
FUNDING ACCOUNT/FUND #/CIP: 502-13-30.6201 |
|
TOTAL |
$ 100,000.00 |
|
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
NONE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
NONE
IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?
|
|
Department |
|
|
City Clerk’s Office |
|
|
Document to be recorded |
|
|
Document to be codified |
|
Acting City Administrator: |
Date: |
|
John D. Simonton |
09/08/2026 |
|
Reviewed by City Attorney: |
Date: |
|
Richard W. Files |
09/08/2026 |