River Wars: 8th circs uphold Army Corps decisions on MO River reservoir releases

8th Circs in pair of rulings hold North Dakota could not prevent water releases from Missouri River reservoir in North Dakota to maintain downstream navigation; 8th Circ also find in separate case that the Corps in charge of the MO river system did not have a legal obligation to maintain a minumum downstream flow on the river State of North Dakota v. U.S. Dept. of Army U.S. Court of Appeals Case No. 04-2204 and No. 04-2737 District of Minnesota and 08/16/05 American Rivers v. U.S. Army Corps North Dakota case: District court did not err in dismissing State's suit to enjoin the Corps of Engineers from releasing water from Lake Sakakawea to support downstream navigation on the Missouri River; North Dakota cannot enforce its state water quality standards against the Corps unless Congress has unequivocally waived the federal government's sovereign immunity from suit, and the Clean Water Act, pursuant to which the state standards were adopted, specifically states that it shall not be construed as impairing the authority of the Secretary of the Army to maintain navigation; further, allowing states to use their water-quality standards to control how the Crops balances water-use interests would frustrate the Flood Control Act of 1944. 08/16/05 American Rivers v. U.S. Army Corps U.S. Court of Appeals Case No. 04-2737 and No. 04-2994and No. 04-2878 and No. 04-2794 and No. 04-2785 and No. 04-2774 District of Minnesota Flood Control Act of 1944 does not impose a duty on the Corps to maintain a minimum level of downstream navigation independent of other interests, and the Corps' balance of water-use interests in the 2004 Master manual is in accordance with the Flood Control Act and is not arbitrary or capricious; the operation of the Missouri River reservoir system is subject to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and it was lawful for the Corps to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to produce the 2003 Amended Biological Opinion; claims based on summer low flow are moot; challenges to the Fish and Wildlife Service's decisions in producing the 2003 Amended Biological Opinion rejected; Corps' selection of the Preferred Alternative in the Environmental Impact Statements was not arbitrary or capricious; claims by the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation were properly dismissed for lack of standing.