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
National Historic Preservation Act

Colorado River Indian Tribes, a federally recognized Indian Tribe v. United States Department of the Interior; Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; United States Bureau of Land Management; Neil Kornze, in his official capacity as Director of Bureau of Land Management; James G. Kenna, in his official capacity as Calif

Published: Nov. 28, 2015 | Result Date: Sep. 15, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:14-cv-02504-JAK-SP Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Winter King
(Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP)

Heather M. Minner

Sara A. Clark


Defendant

George T. Caplan

John C. Cruden

David B. Glazer

Kristopher S. Davis
(Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)

Erin E. McCracken
(Berger & Hipskind LLP)

Stephen Finn

Paul M. Gelb
(Munck Wllson Mandala LLP)


Facts

Plaintiffs are members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, which includes the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Navajo and Hopi peoples. Plaintiffs brought an action against the U.S. Dept. of the Interior and various others, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendants' approval of the Modified Blythe Solar Power Project violated the law because they conducted no government-to-government consultation with plaintiffs prior to approval of the Project. Plaintiffs also claimed defendants permitted ground disturbing activities before cultural resource monitoring or treatment plans were in place, the environmental impact statement was inadequate and the Project itself was inconsistent with land use designations adopted under federal law.

Result

The court granted summary judgment in defendants' favor and dismissed the case with prejudice.


#125982

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

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