Westlands Water District v. United States Department of the Interior
376 F.3d 853 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency is afforded considerable discretion to define a project's purpose, and its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be upheld if it considers a reasonable range of alternatives that fosters informed public decision-making. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), any 'reasonable and prudent measures' included in a Biological Opinion are invalid if they constitute more than minor changes by altering a project's basic design, scope, or timing.
Facts:
- In 1955, Congress authorized the Trinity River Division (TRD) as part of the Central Valley Project, which allowed for large-scale diversion of water from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River basin.
- Beginning in 1964, the TRD diverted an average of 68% of the Trinity River's flow, with diversions reaching as high as 88% in the first decade of operation.
- By the early 1970s, the reduced water flows had decimated the Trinity River's salmon and steelhead trout populations by destroying critical habitat.
- In response, Congress passed several laws, including the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), mandating that the Secretary of the Interior develop a plan to restore the river's fishery.
- Pursuant to the CVPIA, federal agencies completed a Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study (TRFES), which recommended a comprehensive restoration plan centered on increasing variable water flows.
- Federal, state, and tribal officials prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed restoration plan and several alternatives.
- The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued Biological Opinions containing 'reasonable and prudent measures' (RPMs) to mitigate the plan's impact on endangered species.
- In December 2000, the Department of the Interior issued a Record of Decision (ROD) officially adopting the preferred restoration alternative outlined in the Final EIS.
Procedural Posture:
- Westlands Water District and other California water and power agencies sued the Department of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging violations of NEPA and the ESA.
- The Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes intervened as defendants in support of the restoration plan.
- The district court, ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The district court held that the EIS was inadequate because it improperly narrowed its purpose and failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
- The district court ordered the federal agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS and invalidated two 'reasonable and prudent measures' from the FWS and NMFS Biological Opinions as exceeding statutory authority.
- The federal agencies and the Tribes (as defendants-appellants) appealed the district court's rulings on the EIS to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The water agencies (as plaintiffs-appellees) filed a cross-appeal on other grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for a river restoration project violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by defining its purpose and need too narrowly and failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that integrate more non-flow measures?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin, Circuit Judge
No, the Environmental Impact Statement does not violate the National Environmental Policy Act because the agency acted within its discretion and satisfied the 'rule of reason.' The court held that an agency is afforded considerable discretion to define a project's purpose and need, and the EIS's focus on restoring the mainstem of the Trinity River was reasonable and consistent with its statutory mandates. The court found that the range of alternatives considered was also reasonable, as it included a 'No Action' alternative and a 'Mechanical Restoration' alternative that prioritized non-flow measures, thereby fostering informed public debate and decision-making. The court reversed the district court's holding that the EIS was inadequate and that a supplemental EIS was required. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to invalidate two 'reasonable and prudent measures' from the Biological Opinions, finding they constituted major changes that altered the project's scope and timing in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the deferential 'rule of reason' standard for judicial review of an agency's NEPA compliance, particularly concerning the adequacy of an EIS's range of alternatives. The decision solidifies that an agency can reasonably narrow a project's purpose to align with statutory goals without being required to analyze every alternative proposed by opponents. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the limits of 'reasonable and prudent measures' under the ESA, establishing that they cannot be used to impose major, substantive changes to a proposed federal action, thereby constraining the authority of consulting agencies like the FWS and NMFS.
