- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Arizona
- /
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt
Geography
Year
2020
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2020
Status
Notice of appeal filed by federal defendants.
Geography
Docket number
4:20-cv-00106
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the District of Arizona (D. Ariz.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Endangered Species Act and Other Wildlife Protection Statutes (US)
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → Endangered Species Act (ESA)
At issue
Challenge to biological opinions issued in connection with groundwater pumping by a U.S. Army base in southeastern Arizona.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
06/21/2022
Notice of appeal filed by federal defendants.
Appeal
05/27/2022
Notice of appeal filed by Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Maricopa Audubon Society.
Appeal
03/31/2022
Parties' motions for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part.
The federal district court for the District of Arizona ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Fort Huachuca to reinitiate formal consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act regarding the effects of groundwater pumping but rejected conservation groups’ contention that a 2014 biological opinion failed to consider the cumulative effects of the Fort’s groundwater pumping and climate change. The court found that after evaluating “all the evidence … and not[ing] how climate change would affect the listed species and critical habitat,” the FWS “concluded that the impact of climate change was difficult to quantify because of the various complicated factors at play.” The court found that the FWS “did not merely abdicate responsibility by claiming ‘scientific uncertainty,’” stating that while the defendants “were required to consider the effects of climate change,” they did not have “to quantify the combined decreased baseflow from the Fort’s action and decreased precipitation due to climate change.” The court further found that the agencies did not have to look beyond 2030 and that the agencies “formed a rational connection between the data available and the choices made.”
Decision
06/07/2021
Reply filed by defendants in support of cross-motion for summary judgment.
Reply
03/26/2021
Defendants filed combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Motion For Summary Judgment
03/13/2020
Complaint filed.
Two plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court in Arizona seeking to set aside biological opinions that concluded that groundwater pumping by a U.S. Army base in southeastern Arizona was not likely to jeopardize any endangered species that rely on the San Pedro River or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The complaint included nine causes of action under the Endangered Species Act, including one for failing to address the impacts species would face from climate change and failing entirely to analyze climate change in connection with the base’s operations. Another cause of action asserted that consultation under the Endangered Species Act should have been reinitiated, due in part to new information showing that climate change “has had a more rapid and severe impact in the Southwest than anticipated.”
Complaint
Summary
Challenge to biological opinions issued in connection with groundwater pumping by a U.S. Army base in southeastern Arizona.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance