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 08/01/2022 Opinion Download Court of Appeal's decision affirmed in part and reversed in part and case remanded for further proceedings. California Supreme Court Said CEQA Review of Oroville Dam Facilities Was Not Entirely Preempted. The California Supreme Court reversed in part a Court of Appeal’s decision holding that the Federal Power Act (FPA) preempted challenges to the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) environmental review for renewal of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate the Oroville Facilities, which included a hydroelectric dam. The petitioners, Butte and Plumas Counties, challenged the sufficiency of the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including for failing to adopt mitigation measures with respect to climate change. The Supreme Court concluded that the FPA would not preempt CEQA to the extent that the EIR informed decision-making about “matters outside FERC’s jurisdiction or compatible with FERC’s exclusive licensing authority,” such as DWR’s consideration of whether to request particular terms from FERC. -
County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/05/2019 Opinion Download Appeal dismissed with directions to trial court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. California Appellate Court Again Directed Dismissal of Lawsuits Raising Concerns About Climate Change Impacts on Oroville Dam Operations. The California Court of Appeal again concluded that the Federal Power Act (FPA) preempted application of state environmental laws to a relicensing of the Oroville Dam. The appellate court therefore ruled that state courts were without jurisdiction to consider claims that a California Environmental Quality Act review should have considered the impacts of climate change on continued operation of the dam. The court previously reached the same conclusion in December 2018, but the California Supreme Court directed it to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority, which concerned the preemptive effect of the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA). In its 2019 opinion, the Court of Appeal wrote that ICCTA was “materially distinguishable” from the FPA because unlike ICCTA, the FPA is not “deregulatory” in nature. The Court of Appeal also said the plaintiffs incorrectly construed the project subject to environmental review as the “dam and facilities as built” but that the “correct view” was that the project subject to review was a project “to further mitigate the loss of habitat caused by construction of the dam in 1967.” The court said this “correct view of the project” involved only questions of federal law and concluded that the plaintiffs therefore failed to tender an issue over which the court had jurisdiction. 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. -
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.