• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Filing Date: 2015
Case Categories:
  • Adaptation
    • Reverse Impact Assessment
  • State Law Claims
    • State Impact Assessment Laws
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
Principal Laws:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Description: Challenge to water transfer project for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.
  • AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    Docket number(s): 1:15-cv-00754-LJO-BAM
    Court/Admin Entity: E.D. Cal.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    09/14/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs.
    08/31/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by federal defendants.
    06/07/2018 Memorandum Decision Download Memorandum decision and order re post-judgment vacatur issued directing the parties to submit a joint proposed form of judgment.
    02/15/2018 Memorandum Decision Download Memorandum decision and order issued granting in part and denying in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. California Federal Court Found Inadequate Analysis of Climate Change Impacts on Water Transfer Project Under NEPA But Said Analysis Satisfied CEQA Requirements. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California held that more analysis of the impacts climate change would have on a water transfer program for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta was required under NEPA. The court ruled, however, that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) did not require additional climate change analysis. The plaintiffs had challenged the CEQA “baseline” for “fail[ing] to account for ongoing increases in global temperatures,” but the court found that the plaintiffs did not develop the argument “in any serious way” and said it would not “manufacture an argument where none is made and where none exists.” With respect to the analysis of impacts associated with climate change, the court noted the general rule under CEQA that an environmental impact report need not evaluate the impacts of the environment on a project and found that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of identifying evidence that the project would “exacerbate” climate change impacts. Under NEPA, however, the court said the parties appeared to be in agreement that climate change’s impact on the project needed to be considered. The court found that the final environmental impact statement/report (FEIS/R) disclosed predicted declines in snowpack and streamflow due to climate change but failed to explain why the declines would not have significant impacts. The decision also addressed a number of non-climate change claims under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, CEQA, and other state law.
    07/14/2017 Request Download Request issued by court for supplemental briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment. California Federal Court Hearing Challenge to Water Transfer Project Asked for More Briefing on Projected Climate Change Impacts. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California asked the parties to a challenge to a water transfer program for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta to submit supplemental briefing on three issues related to the incorporation of climate change into the baseline used in the environmental review of the proposed program. The environmental review was conducted pursuant to both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act. The court asked the parties to address what record evidence supported the final environmental impact statement/report’s “apparently contradictory decision not to adjust the project baseline to reflect changes in water supply conditions projected to result from climate change” in light of the record evidence projecting such impacts. The court also asked for discussion of the extent to which existing modeling approaches incorporated foreseeable climate change impacts into the baseline. In addition, the court asked for briefing on the extent to which NEPA still imposed a responsibility to incorporate reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts into the baseline given the Trump administration’s withdrawal of the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA climate change guidance. (The court refers to the 2010 CEQ draft guidance, not the final 2016 guidance.)
  • AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    Docket number(s): 18-16666, 18-16780
    Court/Admin Entity: 9th Cir.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    06/25/2019 Order Download Appeals voluntarily dismissed.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.