WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT; Committee for Idaho‘s High Desert, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George MATEJKO, Supervisor, Salmon-Challis National Forest; United States Forest Service; Renee Snyder, BLM Challis Field Office Manager; Bureau of Land Management; David Krosting, BLM Salmon Field Office Manager, Defendants, and State of Idaho, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant.
Nos. 05-35178, 05-35208
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted Oct. 21, 2005. Filed July 24, 2006.
460 F.3d 1142
such can be established, we are confident there are more appropriate tools to rectify the situation. We also do not believe Wersal‘s other grievances merit application of the multiplier in this case, and therefore decline to do so.
11. We conclude that the parties representing appellants RPM and Wersal are entitled to the following fees and expenses, and we dispose of Appellants’ motions and supplemental motions for the same by awarding the fees and expenses as follows, in addition to the costs taxed above against Appellees:
Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom: $867,146.05
Trimble & Associates, Ltd.: $46,148.75
Ronald D. Rotunda: $17,850.00
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A.: $443,783.51.
Clay R. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Natural Resources Division, Boise, ID, for the defendant-intervenor-appellant.
Laurence J. Lucas, Boise, ID, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
L. Michael Bogert, Perkins Coie, Boise, ID, for amicus curiae Western Urban Water Coalition, Denver Water Board, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and City of Tucson Water Department.
Robin L. Rivett, Sacramento, CA, for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.
Before: B. FLETCHER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KING,* District Judge.
KING, District Judge:
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), codified at
BACKGROUND
I.
Western Watersheds Project and Committee for Idaho‘s High Desert (collectively,
Only count four (violation of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA) of the first amended complaint against the BLM is at issue on appeal; the parties agreed to litigate a set of six “test-case” diversions and focus on the legal issue of whether the BLM has a duty to consult under section 7(a)(2). The State of Idaho intervened and, along with the BLM, is an appellant.2
At issue are rights-of-way held by private parties to access and use water as “recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decision of courts” pursuant to the
Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed; . . . .
All patents granted, or preemption or homesteads allowed, shall be subject to any vested and accrued water rights, or rights to ditches and reservoirs used in connection with such water rights, as may have been acquired under or recognized by this section.
The 1866 Act embraced a doctrine of prior appropriation and a general policy of deference to state and local law regarding water rights. See Hunter v. United States, 388 F.2d 148, 151 (9th Cir. 1967). Similarly, the
“The effect of these acts is not limited to rights acquired before 1866. They reach into the future as well, and approve and confirm the policy of appropriation for a beneficial use, as recognized by local rules and customs, and the legislation and judicial decisions of the arid-land states, as the test and measure of private rights in and
The six test-case diversions at issue here are on three streams or rivers in central Idaho: two on Big Timber Creek, three on the Pahsimeroi River, and one on Mahogany Creek. The Big Timber Creek‘s diversions are a “pipe diversion” and a “Carey Act diversion.” The “pipe diversion” was established under the 1866 Act. The “Carey Act diversion” was apparently established under the 1891 Act. The three diversions on the Pahsimeroi River were vested under the 1866 Act. The diversion on Mahogany Creek is also from the 1866 Act. So, of the six test-case diversions, five were acquired under the 1866 Act and one under the 1891 Act. The district court assumed the diversions were 1866 Act rights-of-way for purposes of making its legal rulings.3
II.
In 1976, Congress changed the statutory regime regarding rights-of-way by enacting the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA),
Nothing in this subchapter shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted. However, with the consent of the holder thereof, the Secretary concerned may cancel such a right-of-way or right-of-use and in its stead issue a right-of-way pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter.
In turn, the BLM issued a policy statement in 19834 declaring that “Ditches and canals constructed on public lands on or before October 21, 1976, under the authority of the 1866 Act will be recognized as an authorized use of the public land and no further action is required by either the holder of the vested water right or the
The BLM promulgated consistent regulations in 1986 that provided:
Rights-of-way grants issued on or before October 21, 1976.
A right-of-way grant issued on or before October 21, 1976, pursuant to then existing statutory authority is covered by the provisions of this part unless administration of this part diminishes or reduces any rights conferred by the grant or the statute under which it was issued, in which event the provision of the grant or the then existing statute shall apply.
Holder activity.
. . . .
(b) Any substantial deviation in location or authorized use by the holder during construction, operation or maintenance shall be made only with prior approval of the authorized officer[.]
After the district court issued its decision, the BLM completed major amendments to its rights-of-way regulations, effective June 21, 2005. See 70 Fed. Reg. 20970 (April 22, 2005). Among the many changes, the BLM issued a new regulation regarding the scope of its authority, similar to section 2801.4 quoted above:
The regulations in this part apply to:
. . . .
(3) Grants issued on or before October 21, 1976, under then existing statutory authority, unless application of these regulations would diminish or reduce any rights conferred by the original grant or the statute under which it was issued. Where there would be a diminishment or reduction in any right, the grant or statute applies.
The new regulations also replaced section 2803.2(b) with a section requiring a right-of-way holder to obtain BLM‘s approval before beginning a use or activity that “requires a substantial deviation from the grant.”
Another new statement specifies that the BLM‘s regulations “do not apply to . . . Reservoirs, canals, and ditches constructed under the authority of [section 9 of the 1866 Act].”
This final rule therefore reflects longstanding law and BLM‘s historical practice by clarifying that 1866 Act rights-of-way are not subject to regulation so long as a right-of-way is being operated and maintained in accordance with the scope of the original rights granted. Because rights-of-way under the 1866 Act are perpetual and do not require renewal, no authorization under FLPMA exists or is required in the future. Therefore, unless a right-of-way holder undertakes activities that will result in a substantial deviation in the location of the ditch or canal, or a substantial deviation in the
authorized use, no opportunity exists for BLM to step in and regulate a right-of-way by imposing terms and conditions on the right-of-way‘s operation and maintenance. Simply stated, there is no current BLM authorization to which such terms and conditions could be attached. Therefore, Title V of FLPMA and BLM‘s right-of-way regulations do not apply to these rights-of-way.
This does not mean, however, that BLM cannot take action to protect the public lands when a holder of an 1866 Act right-of-way undertakes activities that are inconsistent with the original right-of-way. In such a situation, if the right-of-way holder does not approach BLM for a FLPMA permit authorizing such activities, FLPMA and BLM‘s trespass regulations provide BLM with the discretion to take an enforcement action against the right-of-way holder.
70 Fed. Reg. at 20980.
III.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires a federal agency to initiate consultation as follows:
Each Federal Agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species[.]
In turn, FWS and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) regulations provide:
Action means all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) actions intended to conserve listed species or their habitat; (b) the promulgation of regulations; (c) the granting of licences, contracts, leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits, or grants-in-aid; or (d) actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the land, water, or air.
In particular, a regulation states that “Section 7 and the requirements of this Part apply to all actions in which there is discretionary Federal involvement or con- trol.”
IV.
After narrowing the scope of the litigation by designating the six test-case diversions, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of Western Watersheds, determining that the BLM had discretion to impose conditions on the test-case diversions. It concluded that the ESA “requires the BLM to consult with the appropriate federal fish and wildlife agency over its decision not to impose conditions on certain water diversions.” The court gave the term “action” in section 7(a)(2) “an expansive definition,” and found an agency decision to “ignore actions by others” to be such action. It reasoned:
There is no principled distinction between (1) a BLM decision to operate diversions across its lands that may affect Bull Trout; (2) a BLM decision to award a permit to a rancher who operates diversions across public lands that may affect Bull Trout; and (3) a BLM decision to ignore a rancher who operates diversions across public lands that may affect Bull Trout.
The district court also found the BLM‘s 1986 regulations and 1983 instruction memorandum to “constitute a continuing agency action—a decision not to impose
That is, the district court found the required action in the BLM‘s continued application of the BLM‘s regulatory interpretations made some 20 years ago—regulations requiring a “substantial deviation in either location or intended use” by the private users,
Following the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Western Watersheds, the court entered an injunction ordering the BLM to initiate consultation within 180 days for three of the test-case diversions, and within 270 days for the remaining test-case diversions. The BLM and intervenor State of Idaho timely appealed from this injunction under
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court reviews the decision to grant a permanent injunction for an abuse of discretion. Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1176 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the rulings of law relied upon by the district court are reviewed de novo. Id.
Judicial review of administrative decisions under the ESA is governed by the APA. “Under the APA, a court may set aside an agency action if the court determines that the action was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.‘” Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Natl. Marine Fisheries Serv., 340 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
The appeal turns on whether the BLM‘s failure to exercise any discretion it might have had to regulate the diversions at issue in this appeal constitutes a BLM “action” that “authorizes, funds, or carries out” the diversions. The question is whether such a failure to exercise discretion (assuming the BLM had discretion) is an “agency action” for purposes of section 7(a)(2), so as to require consultation.
Our answer is no. We start with the plain language of section 7(a)(2), which refers to “agency action” as “any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency.” Of particular significance is the
Both sides look to the ESA regulations for support. The regulations define “action” to mean “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States . . . .”
Although the term “agency action” is to be construed broadly, see Natural Res. Def. Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 1998), Ninth Circuit cases have emphasized that section 7(a)(2) consultation stems only from “affirmative actions.” This point was recently reiterated in Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA, 420 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2005). Defenders of Wildlife repeatedly emphasized that section 7(a)(2) consultation stems from “affirmative” actions only. It found a duty to consult under section 7(a)(2) in an EPA decision to approve a transfer of a Clean Water Act permitting program from federal to state control. Most important for present purposes, the opinion studied section 7(a)(2), analyzed Ninth Circuit case law, and emphasized (over and over) that “action” under section 7(a)(2) must be “affirmative.” Id. at 967 (“section 7(a)(2) specifies that agencies must when acting affirmatively refrain from jeopardizing listed species“) (emphasis in original).
Interpreting section 7(a)(2), the opinion explained that “the [ESA] confers authori- ty and responsibility on agencies to protect listed species when the agency engages in an affirmative action that is both within its decisionmaking authority and unconstrained by earlier agency commitments.” Id. (emphasis added). The “language does indicate that some agency actions are not covered—those the agency does not ‘authorize[], fund[], or carr[y] out.‘” Id. (emphasis and alterations in original). It restates the question as whether agencies must “protect listed species from the impact of affirmative federal actions.” Id. at 970 (emphasis added). It characterizes section 7(a)(2) as “a do-no-harm directive pertaining to affirmative agency action with likely adverse impact on listed species.” Id. (emphasis added). It held that the approval of the transfer of Clean Water Act permitting authority triggered section 7(a)(2)‘s “consultation requirement and its mandate that agencies not affirmatively take actions that are likely to jeopardize listed species.” Id. at 971 (emphasis added). In short, Defenders of Wildlife provides that “inaction” is not “action” for section 7(a)(2) purposes. That is, even assuming the BLM could have had some type of discretion here to regulate the diversions (beyond a “substantial deviation“), the existence of such discretion without more is not an “action” triggering a consultation duty.
The BLM‘s challenged “action” stands in marked contrast to cases involving truly “affirmative” actions. See Turtle Island Restoration Network, 340 F.3d at 977 (holding that section 7(a)(2) applies to the “continued issuance of fishing permits“) and Houston, 146 F.3d at 1125-26 (reasoning that section 7(a)(2) applies to negotiating and executing water contracts, where agency was not bound to reaffirm previously negotiated terms).
Here, the BLM did not fund the diversions, it did not issue permits, it did not grant contracts, it did not build dams, nor did it divert streams.7 Rather, the private holders of the vested rights diverted the water, beginning a long time ago. The BLM did not affirmatively act and was “not an entity responsible for [the challenged] decisionmaking.” Defenders of Wildlife, 420 F.3d at 968 (citing Washington Toxics Coal. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 413 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir. 2005)).
Western Watersheds would find “affirmative” action in the BLM‘s continuing decision not to enforce its regulatory discretion. In this regard,
It is true that “[w]here the challenged action comes within the agency‘s decisionmaking authority and remains so, it falls within section 7(a)(2)‘s scope.” Defenders of Wildlife, 420 F.3d at 969 (emphasis added). However, there is no “ongoing agency action” where the agency has acted earlier but specifically did not retain authority or was otherwise constrained by statute, rule, or contract. For example, in Environmental Protection Information Center v. Simpson Timber Co., 255 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit found no section 7(a)(2) consultation requirement where the FWS had already issued a permit but had not retained discretion to amend it to protect endangered species. There was no “ongoing agency involvement” because the FWS had not “retained the power to ‘implement measures that inure to the benefit of the protected species.‘” Id. at 1080 (quoting Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 65 F.3d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995)). In Sierra Club, section 7(a)(2) did not apply because—like here—the BLM had “no ability to influence” a project based on a right-of-way granted before the ESA was enacted. Sierra Club, 65 F.3d at 1509.
On the other hand, there was such “continuing decision-making authority” in
Here, even if the BLM could have regulated the diversions to protect endangered species, it did not retain such discretion. As the 1983 instruction memorandum, the 1986 regulations, and the recently-enacted 2005 regulatory amendments make clear, the only discretion the BLM retained is to regulate the pre-1976 diversions if there is a “substantial deviation in use or location.” The BLM has the ability to institute enforcement or trespass actions if a right-of-way holder “substantially deviates” and does not obtain BLM approval. See
This is not a lawsuit to “compel agency action” under § 706(1) of the APA. Nor can this be a suit challenging BLM‘s general policies on when or how to regu- late pre-FLPMA rights-of-way because such a “programmatic challenge” to agency policy is improper. Lujan v. Nat‘l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990) (“Under the terms of the APA, the respondent must direct its attack against some particular ‘agency action’ that causes it harm“). A “failure to regulate” claim must be based upon a clearly imposed duty to take some discrete action. Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004). Rather, this is a narrow suit (at least the single count now on appeal) limited to attempting to compel the BLM to initiate consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. We conclude that such a challenge fails.9
Because the test-case diversions did not result from affirmative BLM actions authorizing, funding, or carrying out the activity, there is no duty to consult. Even if the BLM could have retained the power to regulate the pre-FLPMA diversions, its determination made years ago to limit such power is not an “ongoing agency action.”
REVERSED.