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 has considerable discretion to define an Environmental Impact Statement's (EIS) purpose and the range of reasonable alternatives, so long as it fosters informed public participation and is not arbitrarily narrow. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) included in a Biological Opinion are invalid if they require more than minor changes to the proposed action by altering its basic design, timing, or scope.
Facts:
- In 1955, Congress authorized the Trinity River Division (TRD) to divert water from the Trinity River to California's Central Valley, requiring the Secretary of the Interior to protect the river's fish resources.
- Starting in 1964, the TRD diverted the majority of the river's flow, which radically altered the river habitat and caused salmon and steelhead populations to decline by 60-80%.
- In response, Congress passed acts in 1984 and 1992 (CVPIA) mandating the restoration of the river's fish populations and requiring a study to determine new instream flow requirements.
- The Department of the Interior's resulting study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recommended a plan to significantly increase water flows and use mechanical habitat restoration.
- As part of the process, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued Biological Opinions containing mandatory 'reasonable and prudent measures' (RPMs).
- One FWS RPM required a plan to mitigate saltwater intrusion in a connected delta (X2 movement), potentially requiring reallocation of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water.
- An NMFS RPM mandated the 'immediate implementation' of the new flow schedule after the final decision was made.
- The Secretary of the Interior issued a Record of Decision (ROD) formally adopting the restoration plan, including the increased flows, which was challenged by water agencies and power districts.
Procedural Posture:
- Westlands Water District and other California water and power agencies sued the U.S. Department of the Interior in federal district court, alleging violations of NEPA and the ESA.
- The Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes intervened as defendants in support of the federal government's restoration plan.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction limiting water flow releases proposed under the government's plan.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the EIS was inadequate under NEPA because its purpose was too narrow and it failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.
- The district court also invalidated two 'reasonable and prudent measures' from the Biological Opinions, finding they exceeded the agencies' authority under the ESA.
- The district court ordered the federal agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS and to implement the non-flow measures of the restoration plan.
- The federal agencies and the Tribes (as appellants) appealed the district court's NEPA rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the water agencies (as cross-appellants) appealed other parts of the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do federal agencies violate NEPA by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a narrowly defined purpose and a limited range of alternatives, and do they violate the ESA by issuing Biological Opinions with 'reasonable and prudent measures' that significantly alter the timing and scope of the proposed action?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin, Circuit Judge
No, the agencies did not violate NEPA because the EIS's purpose and range of alternatives were reasonable, but Yes, the agencies violated the ESA because the challenged RPMs constituted major, not minor, changes to the proposed action. Under NEPA, an agency's definition of project purpose and its selection of alternatives are reviewed for reasonableness and are afforded considerable discretion. Here, the EIS's focus on the 'mainstem' of the river was a reasonable part of the larger statutory goal of restoring the entire basin. The range of alternatives, which included no action, low-flow, and various increased-flow options, was not required to analyze every conceivable permutation of measures. It was sufficient because it fostered informed public debate, which is the 'touchstone' of NEPA review. The court also found that a supplemental EIS was not required because new circumstances, like the California energy crisis, were not significant enough to warrant it, a decision that was not arbitrary or capricious. Under the ESA, however, RPMs are limited to 'minor changes' and cannot alter the 'basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of the action.' The FWS RPM requiring mitigation of X2 movement was a 'new, significant action' potentially requiring massive water reallocations, and thus was not a 'minor change.' Similarly, the NMFS RPM mandating 'immediate implementation' illegally altered the 'timing of the action.' Therefore, the court upheld the EIS against the NEPA challenge but invalidated the two RPMs under the ESA.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the substantial deference courts grant to agencies under NEPA regarding the scope and content of an Environmental Impact Statement. It clarifies that an agency's 'Purpose and Need' statement can reasonably focus on the primary components of a statutory mandate without being deemed improperly narrow. The ruling also solidifies the 'rule of reason' for evaluating alternatives, emphasizing that the goal is informed public discourse, not an exhaustive analysis of every possible option. Most significantly, the case establishes a clear limit on the power of wildlife agencies under the ESA, preventing them from using 'reasonable and prudent measures' to impose major new substantive requirements that fundamentally alter a proposed federal action.
