This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
National Environmental Policy Act
Endangered Species Act

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District v. Kenneth Lee Salazar, United States Dept. of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Rowan Gould, Ren Lohoefenor, United States Bureau of Reclamation, J. William McDonald and Donald Glaser

Published: Apr. 9, 2011 | Result Date: Dec. 27, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:2009-cv-00407-OWW Bench Decision –  Plaintiffs

Facts

Environmental groups, under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), challenged the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's (Service) opinion issued in 2005 that the effects of the coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) (collectively, Projects) would not jeopardize the continued existence of the delta smelt. Judge Oliver Wanger of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, ordered the Service to conduct a new biological opinion (BiOp). The Service issued another opinion in 2008, and found that the Projects' operations would jeopardize the continued existence of the delta smelt and/or adversely modify its critical habitat.

The Service proposed Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs), under the 2008 BiOp which are the subject of this current lawsuit, a series of consolidated cases brought by the Projects' water contractors and suppliers along with some water users. The RPAs imposed certain operational restrictions on the Projects. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provisionally accepted the BiOp and RPAs while it conducted its own review. Despite the provisional acceptance, Reclamation began implementing the RPAs and BiOp requirements. Plaintiffs argued that the issuance or implementation of the BiOp and the RPAs were unsupported by the best available scientific and commercial data as required by the ESA, did not properly weigh the inflicted harm on the human environment, and that the Service and/or Reclamation should have conducted an environmental assessment or should have prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Result

Judge Wanger ruled in favor of plaintiffs and found that the BiOp failed to meet the requirements of the ESA, that the Federal defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in implementation of the BiOp and RPAs, and that Reclamation failed to comply with NEPA by provisionally accepting and implementing the BiOp and RPAs without first completing an EIS to consider significant effects on the human environment.


#108071

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390