Rodgers

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers

Good Law
381 F. Supp. 2d 1212·2005 WL 1799398·61 ERC (BNA) 1771·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21461
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 28, 2005CIV.S-88-1658 LKKCalifornia19,434 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELATING TO THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication as to liability on their claims relating to the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq Plaintiffs allege that the United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau” or “BOR”), the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) failed to examine critical issues in their biological opinions before executing twenty-five year water contracts in late 2000 for the delivery of California Water Project water to over two dozen irrigation and water districts in the Friant, Hidden, and Buchanan units.

The Friant defendants bring a cross-motion for summary adjudication and the federal defendants have filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion.

I.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

A. BACKGROUND

The Bureau’s operation of Friant Dam dried up many miles of the San Joaquin River, destroying the historic fish populations. Pis.’ SUF 1, citing NRDC v. Patterson, 333 F.Supp.2d 906, 924 (E.D.Cal. August 27, 2004). The Bureau’s operation of Friant Dam also extirpated numerous species of native fish from the upper…

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.