County of Mohave v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

The federal district court for the District of Arizona set aside the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation’s) finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the transfer of a farm’s Colorado River water entitlement to a town miles away. The court found that the plaintiffs raised at least two “substantial questions” regarding whether the transfer would have a significant effect on the environment. One, the plaintiffs showed that the transfer could establish a precedent for future water transfers with significant effects. Two, the plaintiffs showed that the water transfer might have a cumulatively significant impact on the growth of the town, which could cause significant effects. The court therefore remanded for preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environment Policy Act. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ contentions regarding other shortcomings of the environmental review, including arguments that Reclamation’s analysis of cumulative impacts in the context of climate change, the ongoing megadrought, and resulting effects on the Colorado River was inadequate. The court found that even if Reclamation was required to consider cumulative impacts of climate change and the megadrought, the agency had analyzed these impacts to the extent they were applicable to the water transfer. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not raise a substantial question regarding unknown risks of the water transfer related to the long-term drought.

The federal district court for the District of Arizona denied an application for a preliminary injunction blocking U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) approval of a partial assignment and transfer of a Colorado River water entitlement to an Arizona town from a company that diverts water for agricultural purposes. The plaintiffs alleged that Reclamation should have prepared an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court first found that two of the plaintiffs—Mohave County and La Paz County—failed to establish that it was reasonably probable that the water transfer would harm their concrete interests. The court found that the remaining plaintiffs—the City and County of Yuma—had standing but that they failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act, including their claim that Reclamation failed to adequately consider the water transfer’s cumulative impacts as to the effects of climate change and the ongoing drought. The court found that NEPA and its regulations did not require Reclamation to conduct an analysis of these “complex and amorphous issues” but that Reclamation had nevertheless included a brief analysis of these factors that would have satisfied the agency’s “hard look” obligation under NEPA if the analysis were required.