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.