Natural Resources Defense Council v. Houston

Good Law
146 F.3d 1118·98 Daily Journal DAR 6872·28 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21368·46 ERC (BNA) 1865·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 13463
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 24, 1998Nos. 97-16030, 97-16041, 97-16042 to 97-16045 and 97-16173California6,349 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tashima, J.

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.

BACKGROUND

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…

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.