Posted March 4, 2014
In Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen’s Association v. U.S. Department of Interior, No. 1:12-CV-01303-LJO-MJS,
2014 WL 49606, E.D. California (Feb. 6, 2014), environmental groups challenged the
Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation’s approval of interim
renewal contracts authorizing delivery of water from federal reclamation
facilities to water districts served by the Central Valley Project (CVP) under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The court held that the groups failed to exhaust administrative
remedies to challenge the computation of water needs, that the environmental
assessment’s purpose and need statement was adequate, and that the environmental
assessment provided an appropriate explanation for rejecting alternatives of
reducing water quantities for interim renewal contracts. For a copy of the decision, please contact the
National Agricultural Law Center at nataglaw@uark.edu.
For more information on environmental law, please visit the
Center’s Environmental Law Reading Room here.
Background
Plaintiffs, environmental groups, challenged the U.S. Department of the
Interior and its member agency the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s
approval of interim renewal contracts which authorize delivery of water from
federal reclamation facilities to certain water districts served by the CVP and
provide for repayment of construction costs, operation and maintenance expenses. Id.
at *1.
Plaintiffs argue that the defendants issued a deficient Environmental
Assessment (EA) and their “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) prior to
approving the interim contracts violated NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
Id.
The CVP is “a system of dams, reservoirs, levees, canals, pumping
stations, hydropower plants, and other infrastructure that distributes water
throughout California’s vast Central Valley.”
Id. While the CVP was originally a state project,
the Federal government took over construction when California was unable to
finance the project on its own. Id.
NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment.” Id. at *5 (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
4332(2)(C)).
Analysis and Holding
The court concluded that while it had already been determined that an
EIS was not required, NEPA applies to the content of an existing EA, and
plaintiffs may challenge the EA. Id. at *9. The court held, however, that the content of
the EA provided a sufficient explanation, complying with NEPA because the
interim contracts did not modify the status quo. Id.
at 29. The court also held that the EA’s
purpose and need statement was sufficient.
Id.
The court also held that the groups failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies for challenging the computation needs of relevant
contractors. Id. The APA requires that
plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit. Id. Under NEPA, a plaintiff must structure its
participation so that it alerts the agency of its positions in order to allow
the agency an opportunity to consider the issues. Id.
at *9. If a plaintiff fails to exhaust
those remedies, the claim is waived. Id.
