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

Save the Colorado v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Filing Date: 2017
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • Clean Water Act
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
Principal Laws:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act (CWA)
Description: Challenge to approvals for project facilitating diversion of water from Colorado River.
  • Save the Colorado v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    Docket number(s): 1:17-cv-02563
    Court/Admin Entity: D. Colo.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    05/29/2018 Response Download Petitioners filed response to Colorado Department of Natural Resources motion to intervene.
    11/16/2017 Petition for Review Download First amended petition for review filed.
    10/26/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review of agency action filed. Environmental Groups Filed Lawsuit Challenging Colorado River Diversion Project and Alleging Insufficient Analysis of Climate Change Impact on Water Availability. Five environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Colorado challenging federal approvals of a project facilitating the diversion of water from the Colorado River to fill a new 90,000 acre-foot reservoir on Colorado’s Front Range. The plaintiffs called the project “ill-conceived and unnecessary” and alleged that the federal government’s predisposition to pursue the project to fix a failed project exemplified “sunk cost bias” and improperly limited its consideration of alternatives. The plaintiffs contended that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) had failed to comply with NEPA and that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had violated the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs claimed among other things that Reclamation had failed to fully analyze the potential impacts of climate change on water availability for the project; the complaint alleged that “[a]lthough Reclamation considered climate change in a limited fashion, Reclamation did not include its effects quantitatively, did not utilize current scientific findings about climate change, and did not provide a rational explanation of how climate change influenced its decisionmaking.”

© 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.