Kempthorne

CLARIFYING MEMORANDUM RE DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE TERM “PROJECT WATER,” DOCS. 761 and 834.

The parties have recently raised questions regarding the application of shortage provisions to the term “Project Water,” as that term is used in the Sacramento River Settlement Contracts (“SRS Contracts”), and discussed in the November 19, 2008 Memorandum Decision Re Cross Motions For Summary Judgment Re CVP Contract Rescission, 2008 WL 5054115 (“November 19, 2008 Decision”), Doc. 761, and April 27, 2009, 621 F.Supp.2d 954 , Supplemental Memorandum Decision Re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment Addressing Applicability of National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 , 127 S.Ct. 2518 , 168 L.Ed.2d 467 (2007), to Plaintiffs’ Request for Rescission of the Sacramento River Settlement Contracts (“April 27, 2009 Decision”), Doc. 834.

The November 19, 2008 Decision incorrectly quoted a non-SRS Contract for the definition of “Project Water” in the SRS Contracts. See Doc. 761 at 45. The actual definitions of “Base Supply” and “Project Water” in the original SRS Contracts are found at Article 1:

E.g., SC 04452-53 (Original Anderson-Cottonwood Irrig’n Dist. (“ACID”)…