State of Cal. By and Through Brown v. Watt
| Decision Date | 05 July 1983 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of the Interior.
John A. Saurenman, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Cal., with whom Theodora Berger, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Cal., were on brief for petitioners in Nos. 80-1894 and 82-1822.
Lauri J. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Alaska, with whom Wilson Condon, Atty. Gen., State of Alaska, and Jonathan K. Tillinghast, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Alaska, were on brief for petitioner in Nos. 80-1897 and 82-1823.
James M. Hecker, with whom Bruce J. Terris and Edward H. Comer, were on brief for petitioners in Nos. 80-1991 and 82-1825.
Sarah Chasis, with whom Jane Bloom, were on brief for petitioners in Nos. 80-1935 and 82-1824.
Norman A. Cohen, was on brief for petitioner in Nos. 82-2102 and 82-2118.
Kay Kiner James, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Oregon, with whom William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., State of Or., were on brief for petitioner in No. 82-2085.
Charles B. Roe, Jr., Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Wash., was on brief for petitioner in No. 82-2085.
Charles H. Martin, and Bruce Barkett, Attys., State of Florida, entered appearances for petitioner in No. 82-2081.
Jan Chatten-Brown, Senior Asst. City Atty., entered an appearance for petitioner in No. 82-2097.
Wells D. Burgess, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, for respondents. Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice, was on brief for respondents.
E. Edward Bruce, with whom Bobby R. Burchfield, Constance J. Chatwood, Stark Ritchie and David T. Deal, were on the brief for intervenors.
Stephen M. Leonard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was on the brief for amicus curiae, Francis X. Bellotti, Atty. Gen., Commonwealth of Massachusetts, urging remand to the Secretary for reconsideration.
Michael Axline and Richard Hildreth, were on brief for amicus curiae, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, Inc., et al., urging remand to the Secretary for reconsideration in Nos. 82-2102, 82-2118, 82-2081, 82-2085 and 82-2097. John E. Bonine also entered an appearance for Amicus Curiae in No. 82-2102.
Before ROBINSON, Chief Judge, WILKEY and SCALIA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY.
This case requires the court, for the second time, to review the Secretary of Interior's proposed five year schedule of offshore oil and gas leasing activity. After our first review we remanded the program to the Secretary to correct defects resulting largely from the Secretary's erroneous interpretation of the relevant statute. This time we uphold the program, concluding that the earlier errors have been rectified and that the overall program now conforms with the requirements of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 1 enacted in 1953, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant leases for the development of oil and gas deposits contained in the shelf's submerged lands. Congress amended 2 the Act in 1978 3 in order to "promote the swift, orderly and efficient exploration of our almost untapped domestic oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf." 4 The 1978 amendments outlined a five step process for achieving this expeditious but orderly development. The first step is the adoption of a five-year leasing program which contains a proposed schedule of lease sales. 5 This is followed by sale of the leases, 6 exploration, 7 development and production, 8 and ultimately, sale of the recovered minerals. 9 The five step process is "pyramidic in structure, proceeding from broad-based planning to an increasingly narrower focus as actual development grows more imminent." 10 Additional study and consideration is required before each succeeding step is taken. Thus, while an area excluded from the leasing program cannot be leased, explored, or developed, an area included in the program may be excluded at a latter stage. The present challenge is to the first, and thus broadest-based, portion of the process--the five-year leasing program adopted pursuant to section 18.
Section 18 requires the Secretary to prepare, maintain, and periodically revise a five-year leasing program consisting of a "schedule of proposed lease sales, indicating, as precisely as possible, the size, timing and location of leasing activity." 11 The program must be prepared and maintained in accordance with four principles. Since these are basic to the Secretary's action, the petitioners' challenge, and our own analysis, we set them forth textually in full:
(1) Management of the outer Continental Shelf shall be conducted in a manner which considers economic, social, and environmental values of the renewable and nonrenewable resources contained in the outer Continental Shelf, and the potential impact of oil and gas exploration on other resource values of the outer Continental Shelf and the marine, coastal, and human environments.
(2) Timing and location of exploration, development, and production of oil and gas among the oil- and gas-bearing physiographic regions of the outer Continental Shelf shall be based on a consideration of--
(A) existing information concerning the geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics of such regions;
(B) an equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions;
(C) the location of such regions with respect to, and the relative needs of, regional and national energy markets;
(D) the location of such regions with respect to other uses of the sea and seabed, including fisheries, navigation, existing or proposed sealanes, potential sites of deepwater ports, and other anticipated uses of the resources and space of the outer Continental Shelf;
(E) the interest of potential oil and gas producers in the development of oil and gas resources as indicated by exploration or nomination;
(F) laws, goals, and policies of affected States which have been specifically identified by the Governors of such States as relevant matters for the Secretary's consideration;
(G) the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of different areas of the outer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Coal Ass'n v. Hodel
... ... Supp. 1233 John W. Ross, Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull and Jones, P.C., Billings, Mont., Arnold ... Inc.) is a financial holding company that operates, through wholly owned subsidiaries, a common carrier railroad, ... — to better federal land management and the needs of State and local people. The Secretary has discretion, of course, ... See State of California v. Watt, 712 F.2d 584, 600 (D.C.Cir. 1983). Under the ... ...
-
Center for Biological v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
... ... that lies between the outer seaward reaches of a state's jurisdiction and that of the United States. 43 U.S.C. § ... Bowhead whales are also known to feed and migrate through each of these seas. In addition, a number of other species ... §§ 1334, 1337; see also California v. Watt (Watt I), 668 F.2d 1290, 1295-1300 (D.C.Cir.1981). In ... ...
-
Friends of the Earth v. Haaland
...lease sale." Gulf Restoration Network v. Bernhardt , 456 F. Supp. 3d 81, 97 (D.D.C. 2020) ; see also State of Cal. ex rel. Brown v. Watt , 712 F.2d 584, 588 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[W]hile an area excluded from the [Five-Year] leasing program cannot be leased, explored, or developed, an area inc......
-
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 87-1432
... ... Saurenman, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Cal., Los Angeles, Cal., with whom Mary Gray Holt, ... In California v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1981) (Watt I ), this court noted ... documents obtained from the Department of Interior through a Freedom ... Page 294 ... of Information Act request, ... [sic] The Brown pelican is also exposed to risks from an oil spill ... ...
-
Modernizing Management of Offshore Oil and Gas in Federal Waters
...use of cost-benefit analysis). 138. See , e.g. , Watt , 668 F.2d at 1315-18 (discussing balancing of §18 factors); California v. Watt, 712 F.2d 584, 597-601, 13 ELR 20723 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (discussing balancing and cost-benei t analyses). 139. See supra Section III.A.1. (discussing revision ......
-
CHAPTER 1 The History, Status and Future of OCS Leasing
...schedule which was then unsuccessfully challenged by the Watt I petitioners, as well as Washington, Oregon and others. California v. Watt, 712 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Watt II). The Watt II petitioners attacked the adequacy of the analysis done pursuant to Section 18, rather than the Secr......
-
Federal Lands and Fossil Fuels: Maximizing Social Welfare in Federal Energy Leasing
...externality costs, and better meet the mandates of its governing statutes. Interior should consider 51. California v. Watt (Watt II), 712 F.2d 584, 606, 13 ELR 20723 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 52. Id. at 590, 606. 53. See, e.g ., Zero Zone v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 832 F.3d 654, 678-79, 46 ELR 20137 ......
-
The BP Macondo Well Exploration Plan: Wither the Coastal Zone Management Act?
...Cir. 1983). For challenges to early plans, see California v. Watt , 668 F.2d 1290, 12 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1981); California v. Watt , 712 F.2d 584, 13 ELR 20723 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Natural Res. Def. Council v. Hodel , 865 F.2d 288, 19 ELR 20386 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 28. National Research Council......