Natural Resources Defense Council v. Houston
| Decision Date | 24 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | 97-16042,Nos. 97-16030,97-16041,s. 97-16030 |
| Citation | 146 F.3d 1118 |
| Parties | , 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,368, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4866, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6872 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; Trout Unlimited of California; Bay Institute of San Francisco; California Natural Resources Federation; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; California Trout; Friends of the River; Northern California Guides Association; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center; Sierra Club; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc.; United Anglers of California; California Striped Bass Association; National Audubon Society, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David G. HOUSTON, Defendant, and Lower Tule River Irrigation District; Porterville Irrigation District; Saucelito Irrigation District; Stone Corral Irrigation District; Teapot Dome Water District, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; Trout Unlimited of California; Bay Institute of San Francisco; California Natural Resources Federation; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; California Trout; Friends of the River; Northern California Guides Association; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center; Sierra Club; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc.; United Anglers of California; California Striped Bass Association; National Audubon Society, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David G. HOUSTON, Defendant, and Orange Cove Irrigation District; Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District; Exeter Irrigation District; Ivanhoe Irrigation District; Lindmore Irrigation District; Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District; Terra Bella Irrigation District, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; Trout Unlimited of California; Bay Institute of San Francisco; California Natural Resources Federation; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; California Trout; Friends of the River; Northern California Guides Association; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Cent |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Philip F. Atkins-Pattenson (argued), Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, San Francisco, California, Hamilton Candee, Elizabeth R. Pulling, Natural Resource Defense Council, San Francisco, California, Patrick O'Donnell, Levy, Samrick & O'Donnell, San Francisco, California, Cynthia L. Koehler Michael Victor Sexton, Minasian, Spruance, Baber, Meith, Soares & Sexton, LLP, Oroville, California, for defendant-intervenor-appellant Orange Cove Irrigation District.
San Francisco, California, Michael R. Sherwood (on the brief), San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees and cross-appellants.
Denslow Green, Madera, California, for defendants-appellants Chowchilla Water District and Madera Irrigation District.
Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Robert L. Klarquist, Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees Roger Patterson and Bruce Babbitt.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, Clifford T. Lee and Linus Masouredis, Deputy Attorneys General, San Francisco, California, for amici curiae State of California and California State Water Resources Control Board.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV 88-1658 LKK.
Before: SKOPIL, D.W. NELSON, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Various irrigation and water districts (Non-federal Defendants), that rely on water from the Friant dam, appeal the district court's summary judgment decision that the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau or Federal Defendant), violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by renewing water contracts prior to completing required endangered species consultations. These defendants also appeal the district court's conclusion that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. § 383, mandates compliance with Section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code. Various environmental groups led by the National Resources Defense Council (Plaintiffs), cross-appeal the district court's summary judgment decision that the Bureau was not required to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and appeal the dismissal of the Section 8/Section 5937 claim as unripe.
We affirm the district court's holding that the ESA was violated and its decision to rescind the contracts at issue. We remand for a determination on the Section 8/Section 5937 claim.
The Central Valley Project (CVP) is a multi-unit reclamation project administered by the Bureau. The Friant dam unit of the CVP was built on the San Joaquin River by the Bureau in the 1940s. Prior to construction of the dam, the San Joaquin River met the Sacramento River at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where they then flowed out to the Pacific Ocean. Since the time that the dam was completed, the Friant unit has impounded the San Joaquin River water behind the Friant dam and diverted the water to surrounding irrigation districts. This impoundment and diversion leaves a dry stretch of San Joaquin riverbed.
In the late 1940s, the Non-federal Defendants 1 entered into 40-year Friant water service contracts with the government, pursuant to Section 9(e) of the Reclamation Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. § 485h(e). The contracts typically provided that they would be renewed no later than one year prior to expiration on terms that "shall be agreed upon." In 1956, Congress mandated that contract holders had a right to renewal "under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the parties." 43 U.S.C. § 485h-1(1). Contract holders had "a first right ... to a stated share or quantity of the project's available water supply...." 43 U.S.C. § 485h-1(4).
The first of these contracts, the contract with the Orange Cove Irrigation District (Orange Cove), expired in February of 1989. The Bureau began contract renewal negotiations with Orange Cove in June, 1988, and executed a renewal contract in May, 1989. By 1992, the Bureau had executed 13 additional water...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Conservation Cong. v. United States Forest Serv., NO. CIV. S-11-2605 LKK/EFB
-
National Wildlife Federation v. Fema
... ... Department of Justice, Wildlife and Marine, Resources Section, Washington, DC, Brian C Kipnis, U.S. Attorney's ... adoption of more effective measures that protect natural and beneficial floodplain functions," among other goals. 42 ... Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, ... Def. Council ("NRDC") v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir.1998) ("The term `agency ... ...
-
Bonnichsen v. U.S.
... ... Shuey, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, General Litigation Section, Washington, ... Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 ... law." 5 USC § 706(2)(A) & (D); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 1998). A ... ...
-
Center for Food Safety v. Johanns
... ... Moriwake, Paul H. Achitoff, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Honolulu, HI, Joseph Mendelson, III, Washington, DC, ... to evaluate the impact of their actions on the natural environment. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332. Specifically, NEPA ... Through NEPA, Congress established the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ"), which has promulgated ... Def. Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir.1998) ("The term `agency ... guide or prescribe alternative uses of federal resources", upon which future agency actions will be based ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Federal Agency Conservation Obligations and Consultation Under §7 of the ESA
...only prospective actions, but all actions contemplated by agencies are subject to ESA scrutiny); Natural Res. Def. Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1125-27, 28 ELR 21368 (9th Cir. 1997) (renewal of existing contract is “agency action” under the ESA, at least when the agency has some discr......
-
Back to the drawing board: a proposal for adopting a listed species reporting system under the Endangered Species Act.
...(241.) 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (2004); Conner, 848 F.2d at 1453. (242.) 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (2004); Natural Resources Def. Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. (243.) 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (2004). (244.) Id. (245.) Jay Tutchton, An Endangered Species Act Summary, SG039 ALI-ABA 131, 138 ......
-
Case summaries.
...beyond his control that hindered him from submitting his application in a timely fashion. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1754 The United States Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) constructed the Friant dam unit (Friant D......
-
Case summaries.
...1090-91. (130) Id. at 1090 (citing 40 C.F.R. [section] 1502.22 (2004)). (131) Id. at 1092 (quoting Natural Res. Def. Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 1998)). (132) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. [subsection] 4321-4370e (2000). (133) Klamath-Siskiyou......