Desert Protection Society v. Haaland

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California found that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with its granting of a right-of-way for an electrical line and water supply pipeline for a pumped storage electrical generation project (the energy project) near Joshua Tree National Park. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the energy project in 2014 after completing an environmental impact statement (EIS). BLM “tiered” its NEPA review to FERC’s EIS. The court rejected arguments that BLM failed to address global warming’s impacts on groundwater, noting that only the energy project—not the right-of-way—would have an impact on groundwater usage, and that BLM therefore was not required to conduct additional analysis regarding the energy project’s impacts on groundwater. The court noted that BLM nevertheless had reviewed “more up-to-date information on climate change” and found that annual precipitation was not anticipated to change despite global warming. The court also stated that by asserting that BLM had a duty “to separately address the way global warming might intensify the effects of the Project,” plaintiff “misunderstands what NEPA requires.” The court said that “NEPA requires that an agency must assess the impacts of the project on the environment, not the other way around.” The court found that the plaintiff did not contend the right-of-way would have an impact on global warming, only that global warming would increase the project’s other impacts. The court further found that to the extent the plaintiff claimed BLM failed to address how global warming would intensify the project’s impacts on groundwater overdraft and wildlife, BLM had conducted sufficient analysis. In addition, the court found no violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.