767 F.3d 781
9th Cir.2014Background
- Salton Sea impacted by Colorado River water transfers from Imperial Valley; Secretary of the Interior prepared an EIS analyzing Salton Sea effects and approved water delivery changes.
- Imperial County and its Air Pollution Control District sued alleging NEPA and CAA violations; Imperial Irrigation District and other districts intervened.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no standing or no NEPA/CAA violations on the merits.
- Panel held plaintiffs had standing to sue and affirmed on the merits that NEPA was satisfied and CAA conformity not violated.
- The case addresses dependencies among NEPA, CEQA-incorporating processes, tiering/incorporation by reference, and whether supplemental EIS was required.
- Key factual context includes multiple EIS documents: Transfer EIS, Final Implementation Agreement EIS, and various state and federal environmental materials incorporated by reference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Imperial County and Air District have standing to sue? | Imperial County and Air District showed concrete injuries. | Secretary’s action injures nonparties; standing is limited. | Yes, standing exists for procedural NEPA/CAA claims. |
| Did the Secretary violate NEPA in the Implementation Agreement EIS? | EIS failed to clarify incorporation and possible mitigation. | Incorporation by reference was proper; no significant new information required. | No NEPA violation; EIS provided hard look and proper integration. |
| Did the Secretary need a CAA conformity determination? | CRWDA would increase PM10, requiring conformity analysis. | No direct/indirect emissions under agency control; conformity not required here. | No CAA violation; no mandatory conformity determination. |
| Was there improper segmentation or improper tiering/incorporation by reference? | Two EISs and reliance on non-NEPA documents flawed. | Documents were properly incorporated by reference; segmentation appropriate. | No improper segmentation or tiering; incorporation by reference acceptable. |
| Was a supplemental EIS required after SSHCS changes? | No mitigation changes discussed; new alternatives warranted. | Mitigation shifts were within range of alternatives; no supplemental EIS needed. | No supplemental EIS required; changes within the analyzed alternatives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003) (procedural NEPA standing and scope considerations)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requirements and injury in fact)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1989) (NEPA: mitigation discussion and final decision range)
- Russell Country Sportsmen v. U.S. Forest Serv., 668 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2011) (supplemental EIS; mitigation within range of alternatives)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (administrative discretion in NEPA decisions)
- City of Las Vegas v. FAA, 570 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding of no significant impact vs. full conformity review)
- S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. FERC, 621 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (standing and APA/CAA review for federal actions)