- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Geography
Year
2020
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2020
Status
Memorandum filed by federal defendants in response to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in support of cross-motion for summary judgment.
Geography
Docket number
1:20-cv-00706
Court/admin entity
United States → United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (E.D. Cal.)United States → United States Federal Courts
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → NEPA (US)
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Lawsuit charging that the conversion of Central Valley Project “renewal contracts” into “permanent repayment contracts” was a major federal action that required compliance with NEPA.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
10/05/2021
Memorandum filed by federal defendants in response to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in support of cross-motion for summary judgment.
Motion For Summary Judgment
–
08/17/2021
Motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs.
Motion For Summary Judgment
–
05/20/2020
Complaint filed.
Center for Biological Diversity and two other organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California asserting that the conversion of Central Valley Project “renewal contracts” into “permanent repayment contracts” was a major federal action that required compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs alleged that completed and pending conversions would obligate the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to deliver more than two million acre-feet of water each year by diverting water from rivers and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, resulting in many significant adverse impacts on the watershed. The plaintiffs said a NEPA alternatives analysis “would allow meaningful consideration of the trade-offs between water deliveries and environmental harm as well as opportunities to reduce deliveries over time,” including, for example, “to limit the term of the contract so as reduce quantities over time to reflect worsening conditions caused by climate change.”
Complaint
–
Summary
Lawsuit charging that the conversion of Central Valley Project “renewal contracts” into “permanent repayment contracts” was a major federal action that required compliance with NEPA.
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
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance