Norton

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Norton

Good Law
236 F. Supp. 3d 1198·2017 WL 735687·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25698
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 2017Case No. 1:05-cv-01207 LJO-EPGCalifornia18,429 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lawrenceneill, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE -MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Docs. 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1036).

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 28, 2016, Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental interest groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, filed the currently operative Fourth Supplemental Complaint (“4SC”), which includes three pre-existing claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Endangered Species. Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., alleging that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau” or “Reclamation”) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife'Service (“FWS” or “Service”) acted unlawfully by renewing, implementing, and approving the renewal and implementation of certain long-term water contracts in reliance on a 2005 Biological Opinion (“2005 FWS Smelt OCAP BiOp”) issued by FWS pursuant to the ESA, that the agencies knéw, or should have' known, was inadequate to protect the ESA-listed delta smelt. Doc. 575 (filed Apr. 8, 2008). Specifically, the pre-existing claims challenged renewal of two sets of contracts: (1) those held by the Sacramento River Settlement (“SRS”) Contractors; and (2) those held by the Delta-Mendota Canal Unit (“DMC”)…

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.