Duvall

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Duvall

Good Law
777 F. Supp. 1533·1991 WL 239232·34 ERC (BNA) 1736·1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19965
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 26, 1991Civ. S-88-375 LKKCalifornia5,693 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ suit attacks the adoption of regulations implementing the Reclamation Reform Act (“RRA”) on the grounds that prior to adoption the Bureau of Reclamation was required to perform an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. For the reasons I explain below, the motion is granted.

THE RECLAMATION ACTS

In 1902, Congress adopted the first Reclamation Act. Its purpose was to “encourage family farming on modest sized parcels and to increase agricultural output by subsidizing the irrigation of formerly arid and unproductive lands.” Barcellos & Wolfson, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist., 899 F.2d 814 , 824 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 555 , 112 L.Ed.2d 562 (1990). The Act was designed to limit private speculative gains resulting from the existence of reclamation projects, see United States v. Tulare Lake Canal Co., 585 F.2d 1093, 1119 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1121 , 97 S.Ct. 1156 , 51 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977), which ultimately provided irrigation water to farmers throughout the 17 western states at…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.