State of Cal. by and through Brown v. Watt, s. 81-5699

Citation683 F.2d 1253
Decision Date12 August 1982
Docket NumberNos. 81-5699,s. 81-5699
Parties, 12 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,084 The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting By and Through Governor Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., the California Coastal Commission, the California Air Resources Board, the California Resources Agency, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Department of Conservation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James G. WATT, as Secretary of the Interior; the United States Department of the Interior; Edward Hastey, as Acting Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management; Robert Burford, as Director Designate of the United States Bureau of Land Management, in his official capacity as Director when and if assumed; the United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendants, Western Oil and Gas Association, a regional trade association; Amoco Production Company, a corporation; Atlantic Richfield Company, a corporation; Champlin Refining Company, a corporation; Chevron U. S. A. Inc.; Cities Service Company, a corporation; Conoco, Inc.; Elf Acquitaine Oil and Gas, a corporation; Exxon Corporation; Getty Oil Company, a corporation; Gulf Oil Corporation; Phillips Petroleum Company, a corporation; and Shell Oil Company, a corporation, Defendants-in-Intervention/Appellants. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.; the Sierra Club; Friends of the Earth; Friends of the Sea Otter; and the Environmental Coalition on Lease Sale 53, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James G. WATT, as Secretary of the Interior, etc., et al., Defendants, Western Oil and Gas Association, a regional trade association, etc., et al., Defendants-in-Intervention/Appellants. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting By and Through Governor Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, County of Humboldt; County of Marin; County of Mendocino; County of Monterey; County of San Luis Obispo; County of San Mateo; County of Santa Barbara; County of Santa Clara; County of Santa Cruz; County of Sonoma; City and County of San Francisco; City of Brisbane; City of Capitola; City of Carmel-By-the-Sea; City of Los A
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Theodora Berger, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for State of cal.

Donatas Januta, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for Coastal Counties and Cities; Irwin D. Karp, Januta & Karp, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.

Greer Knopf, Deputy County Counsel, San Diego, Cal., for San Diego County.

Trent W. Orr, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for Natural Resources Defense Counsel; Sarah Chasis, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York City, Julie E. McDonald, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.

E. Edward Bruce, Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., for Watt, Western Oil & Gas Ass'n, et al.

Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for U. S.

H. Bartow Farr, III, Joseph N. Onek, Peter E. Scheer, Onek, Klein & Farr, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae Coastal States Organization.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before SNEED, TANG and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.

SNEED, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns a dispute over the proposed sale by the United States Department of Interior of leases to drill for and extract oil and gas in the outer continental shelf (OCS) off the coast of California.

Plaintiffs below were the State of California and various agencies within the state. Intervening as plaintiffs were various cities and counties in California (hereafter "local governments"). Plaintiffs in a companion case, which was consolidated with this one, were the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Sea Otter, and the Environmental Coalition on Lease Sale 53 (hereafter "environmental groups"). Defendants in both cases below were James G. Watt, acting in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, the Department of Interior, Robert Burford, acting in his official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Intervening as defendants in both actions were Western Oil and Gas Association (WOGA), a regional trade association of companies and individuals in the petroleum industry, and various oil companies that had submitted high bids on one or more tracts offered in Lease Sale No. 53.

Plaintiffs claimed below that defendants violated five federal statutes in offering for competitive bidding certain oil and gas leases on tracts located in the Santa Maria Basin. Finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact in the two consolidated cases, the district court granted summary

                judgment to the plaintiffs on their claim based on the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), granted summary judgment to defendants on the remaining issues, and dismissed the claims of the environmental groups for lack of standing.  The court enjoined leasing of the disputed tracts and ordered the bids and deposits returned but stayed the effect of the latter order pending appeal.  1  All parties appealed.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and stay in part
                
I. ISSUES ON APPEAL

There are four issues on appeal which we state as follows:

1. CZMA Issue: Did the Secretary of Interior violate Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA by selling oil and gas leases for the outer continental shelf without a determination of consistency with California's coastal zone management plan? Our answer is that he did.

2. NEPA Issue: Did the Department of Interior violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to supplement the Environmental Impact Statement? Our answer is that it did not.

3. OCSLA Issue: Did the Secretary violate section 19 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) by refusing to accept the recommendations of the Governor 4. Standing Issue: Do the environmental groups have standing to enforce the consistency determination provision of the CZMA? Our answer is that they do.

of the State of California regarding Lease Sale 53? Our answer is that he did not.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As already noted, summary judgment was granted by the district court on all issues. Our review is identical to that of the district court. Washington ex rel. Edwards v. Heimann, 633 F.2d 886, 888 n.1 (9th Cir. 1980). That is, we may affirm a summary judgment only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom it is granted, we find no genuine issue of material fact, and we find that the prevailing party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 888; Dosier v. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp., 656 F.2d 1295, 1300 (9th Cir. 1981).

III. FACTS AND BACKGROUND

While the facts and background of these cases are complex, they are thoroughly laid out in the district court opinion. California v. Watt, 520 F.Supp. 1359, 1365-68 (C.D.Cal.1981). To aid the reader of this opinion, however, we shall summarize briefly the pertinent facts and background of these cases.

The lease sale in dispute is Lease Sale 53, consisting of a maximum offering of 243 designated tracts of the OCS for mineral development. The tracts in Lease Sale 53 lie in five different basins off the coast of California, including the Santa Maria Basin. That basin extends generally from Point Sur in Monterey County in the north to Point Conception in Santa Barbara County in the south. During the course of decision-making on Lease Sale 53, the Department of Interior at various times...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • State of Wis. v. Weinberger, 84-1569
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 20 August 1984
    ...significant new circumstance such that agency was required to issue an EIS supplement before awarding oil lease); California v. Watt, 683 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.1982), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Secretary of the Interior v. California, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 656, 77 L.Ed.2d 295 (1984) (d......
  • Secretary of the Interior v. California Western Oil and Gas Association v. California California v. Secretary of the Interior
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 11 January 1984
    ...possible effects on the coastal zone that may eventually result from the sale of a lease cannot be termed "direct." Pp. 342-343. 683 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.1982), Sol. Gen. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D.C., for the Secretary of the Interior, et al. E. Edward Bruce, Washington, D.C., for Western Oil......
  • Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Hammond, 81-3700
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 3 February 1984
    ...Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551, 94 S.Ct. 2474 [2483], 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974).586 F.2d at 729; see also State of California v. Watt, 683 F.2d 1253, 1263 (9th Cir.1982), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Secretary of the Interior v. California, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 656, 78 L.Ed.2d 496 ......
  • Friends of the River v. F.E.R.C., 82-2022
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 11 October 1983
    ...EIS is unnecessary, every time some new information comes to light. Rather, a reasonableness standard governs. See California v. Watt, 683 F.2d 1253, 1268 (9th Cir.1982), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2083, 77 L.Ed.2d 295 (1983); Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 10......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT