Recent Ninth Circuit ESA Decision May Be Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Posted in Court Decisions

On July 14, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) filed a petition for writ of certiorari (pdf) with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 749 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014). In an en banc decision, the Ninth Circuit found that a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) action renewing settlement contracts with senior water rights holders is subject to consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit’s decision rested on its interpretation of the settlement contracts which, according to the Court, did not strip Reclamation of its discretion to act to benefit the delta smelt and its designated critical habitat. Concluding that Reclamation can choose not to renew the contracts and, alternatively, otherwise condition the contracts to benefit the delta smelt, the Court held that Reclamation had the requisite discretion for ESA consultation.

GCID’s petition argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision merits U.S. Supreme Court review because it contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (Home Builders) and is at odds with the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 962 F.2d 27 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Platte River).

In Home Builders, the Supreme Court held that section 7(a)(2) applies only to discretionary agency actions. GCID argues that the Ninth’s Circuit decision is contrary to Home Builders because Reclamation is directed under federal and state law to renew the settlement contracts and, therefore, lacks the requisite discretion under the ESA.

In Platte River, the D.C. Circuit held that a federal agency lacks ESA discretion where it is not unilaterally authorized to amend the terms of a license. GCID argues that Platte River is analogous to Reclamation’s action to bilaterally renegotiate settlement contracts with Central Valley Project contractors.

Responses to the petition are due on August 15, 2014.
 

  • Partner

    Liz Klebaner advises public agency and corporate clients on a variety of complex land use and environmental matters, and she litigates in both state and federal court.  While based in Nossaman’s Los Angeles office, Liz has strong ...

Nossaman’s Endangered Species Law & Policy blog focuses on news, events, and policies affecting endangered species issues in California and throughout the United States. Topics include listing and critical habitat decisions, conservation and recovery planning, inter-agency consultation, and related developments in law, policy, and science. We also inform readers about regulatory and legislative developments, as well as key court decisions.

Stay Connected

RSS RSS Feed

Categories

Archives

View All Nossaman Blogs
Jump to Page

We use cookies on this website to improve functionality, enhance performance, analyze website traffic and to enable social media features.  To learn more, please see our Privacy Policy and our Terms & Conditions for additional detail.