Description: Lawsuit alleging failure to consider the environmental effects of climate change on the operation of the Oroville Dam and related facilities.
-
County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 04/10/2019 Order Appellate court directed to vacate and reconsider case. California Supreme Court Sent Case Concerning Climate Impacts on Dam Back to Lower Appellate Court. The California Supreme Court directed the California Court of Appeal to vacate and reconsider its decision finding that state courts lacked jurisdiction to hear California counties’ claims that the impact of climate change on continued operation of the Oroville Dam should have been considered in a relicensing process for the dam. The Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeal to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority, which concluded that the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 did not preempt application of the California Environmental Quality Act to a railroad project undertaken by a state public entity. -
County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/20/2018 Opinion Download Opinion issued dismissing appeal with directions to trial court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. California Appellate Court Found No State Court Jurisdiction for Claims About Climate Change Impacts on Oroville Dam. The California Court of Appeal ruled that state courts were without jurisdiction to hear claims that the impact of climate change on continued operation of the Oroville Dam was not considered in a relicensing process for the dam. The trial court had dismissed the complaint on the ground that predicting climate change impacts was speculative. The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that the operation of the existing dam was not the "project" subject to environmental review. Instead, the “project” at issue was certain specified measures to further mitigate the loss of habitat caused by the dam’s construction decades ago, a project over which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act. The appellate court noted that this case did not concern “the construction, repair, or replacement of the dam spillways, the need for which occurred during the pendency of this case,” referring to failure of a spillway at the dam in 2017, which forced the evacuation of almost 200,000 people who lived downstream. 03/27/2013 Brief Download Opening brief filed by appellants.