Negotiations between Reclamation and the District Sample Clauses

Negotiations between Reclamation and the District. For a variety of reasons, up until the mid 1990s, the historical use of minor amounts of Project water for M&I purposes was never resolved. Then, in the mid 1990s, the District formed the Vallecito Water Company (VWC) as a separate, non-profit corporation to plan, construct, and operate a rural domestic water system to serve southeastern La Plata County. At that time, the District Board of Directors and the District shareholders voted to provide up to 2,000 af of Pine River Project water annually from storage in Vallecito Reservoir for VWC as the water supply for the M&I system. With VWC proposing to use 2,000 af of Project water for the proposed rural domestic water system, Reclamation staff contacted the District Board of Directors and stated Reclamation's position that a change in use of water would require a contract that involved Reclamation approval. Reclamation and the District initiated discussions in 1995; however, issues over contract term limits and payment amounts were not resolved and no agreements were reached. Subsequently, in 2001, the District dissolved VWC due to financial and organizational concerns. However, the need for M&I water in the area and the District’s desire to provide a reliable supply to meet that need continued. In 2003, a group called Opponents of the Gopher Hole Project, LLC,4 filed suit against the District opposing a new proposed lease of 2,000 af of water from the Project to provide a water supply for the proposed Xx Xxxxx-Xxxxxxxxx Water District (LAPLAWD). The La Plata County District Court ruled, among other things, that the District Board of Directors has discretion to allocate water between domestic and irrigation uses without express approval of the shareholders. While this ruling resolved issues at the State and local level, Federal authority to allow the use of irrigation water for M&I uses remained unresolved. In 2004, Reclamation and the District again initiated discussions in an attempt to resolve the outstanding issue of the Federal authority to use Project water for M&I purposes. Reclamation presented a contractual concept that involved the use of the 1920 Act. This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts to supply water from any project irrigation system for purposes other than irrigation, upon such conditions of delivery, use, and payment as the Secretary may deem proper, provided: (1) That the approval of such contract by the water users’ association or associations shall ha...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Negotiations between Reclamation and the District

  • Disputes between the Contracting Parties 1. Any dispute between the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall, as far as possible, be settled through negotiation.

  • Settlement of Disputes between the Contracting Parties 1. Disputes between the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement should, if possible, be settled through diplomatic channels.

  • Settlement of Disputes between Contracting Parties (1) Disputes between Contracting Parties regarding the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Agreement shall be settled through official channels.

  • Disputes between Contracting Parties (1) Disputes between Contracting Parties regarding the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Agreement shall be settled through diplomatic channels.

  • Disputes between an Investor and a Contracting Party (1) Any dispute concerning an investment between an investor of one Contracting Party and the other Contracting Party shall, if possible, be settled amicably.

  • Conflict Between this Amendment and the Agreement This Amendment shall be deemed to revise the terms and provisions of the Agreement to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms and provisions of this Amendment. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the terms and provisions of the Agreement this Amendment shall govern, provided, however, that the fact that a term or provision appears in this Amendment but not in the Agreement, or in the Agreement but not in this Amendment, shall not be interpreted as, or deemed grounds for finding, a conflict for purposes of this Section 4.1.

  • Disputes between a Contracting Party and an Investor of the other Contracting Party

  • Settlement of Disputes between an Investor and a Contracting Party (1) Any dispute between an investor of one Contracting Party and the other Contracting Party in relation to an investment of the former under this Agreement shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably through negotiations between the parties to the dispute.

  • Settlement of Disputes between the Parties 1. Any dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Chapter shall, as far as possible, be settled with consultation through diplomatic channel. 2. If a dispute cannot thus be settled within 6 months, it shall, upon the request of either Party, be submitted to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal. 3. Such tribunal comprises of 3 arbitrators. Within 2 months of the receipt of the written notice requesting arbitration, each Party shall appoint one arbitrator. Those 2 arbitrators shall, within further 2 months, together select a national of a third State having diplomatic relations with both Parties who, upon approval by the Parties, shall be appointed as Chairman of the arbitral tribunal. 4. If the arbitral tribunal has not been constituted within 4 months from the receipt of the written notice requesting arbitration, either Party may, in the absence of any other agreement, invite the President of the International Court of Justice to make any necessary appointments. If the President is a national of either Party or is otherwise prevented from discharging the said functions, the Member of the International Court of Justice next in seniority who is not a national of either Party or is not otherwise prevented from discharging the said functions shall be invited to make such necessary appointments. 5. The arbitral tribunal shall determine its own procedure. The arbitral tribunal shall reach its award in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and the principles of international law recognized by both Parties. 6. The arbitral tribunal shall reach its award by a majority of votes. Such award shall be final and binding upon both Parties. The arbitral tribunal shall, upon the request of either Party, explain the reasons of its award. 7. Each Party shall bear the costs of its appointed arbitrator and of its representation in arbitral proceedings. The relevant costs of the Chairman and tribunal shall be borne in equal parts by the Parties.

  • Disputes between the Parties Any dispute between the Parties in connection with this Agreement shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the procedures set forth in Exhibit B; provided, however, that either Party may seek a restraining order, temporary injunction, or other provisional relief in any court with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute and sitting in Houston, Texas, if such Party in its sole judgment believes that such action is necessary to avoid irreparable injury or to preserve the status quo ante.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.