History
  • No items yet
midpage
Warren v. United States
6:16-cv-01788
D. Or.
Mar 20, 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Aleta Warren sued the Central Oregon Irrigation District and federal Bureau of Reclamation officials seeking to enjoin two canal‑piping projects (I‑Lateral and PBC/Juniper Phase 2) and to obtain declaratory relief under NEPA and NHPA.
  • The I‑Lateral Project piped ~5,000 feet of a lateral off the Central Oregon Canal; it was initiated in 2012 and completed in June 2013, and received a WaterSMART grant determination by the Bureau.
  • The PBC (Juniper Phase 2) Project was proposed to add ~1 mile of piping to the Pilot Butte Canal, had an approved WaterSMART grant in principle, but was placed on hold and then cancelled before the complaint was filed; no federal or state funds were spent.
  • Plaintiff alleges injury to recreational, aesthetic, economic, and cultural interests in historic canals near her property and challenges the 2014 Memorandum of Agreement among the Bureau, the Irrigation District, and the State Historic Preservation Officer.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and ripeness; the court considered extrinsic declarations showing the I‑Lateral work was complete and the PBC project was cancelled prior to suit.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Standing for I‑Lateral Project Warren claims concrete recreational/aesthetic/historic injury from piping and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief under NEPA/NHPA I rrigation Dist. and federal defendants point out project was completed in 2013 and plaintiff has not shown she used or intended to use the specific piped segment; no imminent injury Dismissed for lack of Article III standing — plaintiff failed to show a concrete, particularized, imminent injury tied to the piped segment
Standing/ripeness for PBC (Juniper Phase 2) Project Warren asserts prospective injury if PBC proceeds and challenges NEPA/NHPA compliance and the 2014 MOA Defendants show the PBC project was cancelled pre‑suit, no federal funds were released, and the WaterSMART grant was reallocated; thus no imminent action to injunct Dismissed as unripe/no standing — no actual or imminent injury and no live controversy
Redressability of requested relief Warren seeks injunctions, declaratory relief, and invalidation of MOA to prevent/mitigate harm Defendants argue injunctions or declarations cannot change a completed project or revive a cancelled one; MOA invalidation would not redress past harms Court: relief would be ineffective — injunctions/declarations would not redress alleged injuries; dismissal affirmed
Consideration of extrinsic evidence on 12(b)(1) factual challenge Warren relies on complaint and supporting documents to show ongoing risk Defendants submitted declarations and documentary evidence showing completion/cancellation; court may consider such materials on factual jurisdictional challenge Court considered affidavits/declarations and credited them in resolving standing/ripeness in defendants' favor

Key Cases Cited

  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing standards under Article III)
  • Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (injury‑in‑fact requires particularized, concrete future harm; generalized visitation plans insufficient)
  • Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (plaintiff claiming environmental injury must use the affected area)
  • Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358 (courts may consider materials beyond pleadings on factual 12(b)(1) challenges)
  • Green v. United States, 630 F.3d 1245 (proof of jurisdictional facts by affidavits/declarations on 12(b)(1))
  • Colwell v. HHS, 558 F.3d 1112 (ripeness and plaintiff's burden where factual challenge raised)
  • Kingman Reef Atoll Investments v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (no presumption of truthfulness when jurisdictional facts challenged)
  • Neighbor of Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059 (ripeness doctrine limits premature review of administrative action)
  • Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012 (mootness/kill‑switch concerns where defendants may cancel projects to avoid litigation)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Warren v. United States
Court Name: District Court, D. Oregon
Date Published: Mar 20, 2017
Docket Number: 6:16-cv-01788
Court Abbreviation: D. Or.