Eastern District of California Blog

Environmental Suit Over Shasta Dam Filed

Environmental advocacy group Klamath Riverkeeper filed a lawsuit Thursday over a dam and series of water diversions operated by Montague Water Conservation District on the Shasta River in Siskiyou County.

Additionally, the Karuk Tribe filed its 60-day notice of intent to litigate on the same grounds.

According to a press release, Riverkeeper's complaint -- filed in federal court in Sacramento -- alleges that Dwinnell Dam and MWCD diversions from Dwinnell Reservoir, nearby Parks Creek and Little Shasta River have harmed endangered coho salmon populations in the Shasta River.

Times-Standard, 5/18/12

Sierra Club Challenges Wind Power Project

"The Sierra Club and others challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's approval of rights of way to the North Sky River Wind Energy Project - 100 wind turbines on 12,781 acres of private land that requires access across public lands - claiming the giant turbines will hurt migratory and endangered birds, including the California condor, in Federal Court."  Courthouse News, 4/16/12; Civil Complaint, Sierra Club v. Kenna, No. 12-CV-974-JAM.

Fresno Court Dismisses Environmental Zoo Suit

An environmental lawsuit against the city of Fresno and Fresno Chaffee Zoo Corp. was dismissed by a Fresno-based U.S. District Court judge before a hearing previously scheduled for Monday.

Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill dismissed the case Thursday because the plaintiff -- Friends of Roeding Park -- did not name a federal defendant in the lawsuit and was late with its legal filing.

Fresno Bee, 4/9/12

Settlement In Sacramento Suit Over Discharge Of Raw Sewage

Sacramento County and the Sacramento Area Sewer District have agreed to pay $660,000 in mitigation and attorneys' fees and drastically reduce raw sewage spills to resolve a lawsuit brought by a clean-water advocacy group.

A consent decree entered into by the county, the district and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance was approved Friday by U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. She will retain jurisdiction in the matter in case disputes arise during the 6 1/2-year life of the decree.

Sacramento Bee, 3/10/12

Ninth Circuit Rejects Parts Of Sierra Forest Service Plan

A federal appellate court has struck down as unlawful a 2004 management plan for Sierra Nevada national forests formulated by George W. Bush's administration, saying it lacks a required analysis of how fish will fare under the plan.

A split three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held the Bush plan up next to a plan put in place in the dying days of Bill Clinton's administration, pointing out that the earlier plan includes an insightful and viable look at how fish will be affected by its provisions.

The Bush administration took office in January 2001 and immediately began work on its revised plan.

Friday's circuit opinion reverses U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. of Sacramento, who sided with the U.S. Forest Service in a 2008 ruling in which he rejected a challenge by the Pacific Rivers Council to the 2004 management plan's lack of impact analysis regarding fish. The council, an advocacy group that champions aquatic life, contends the 2004 plan is inconsistent with the National Environmental Protection Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The panel agreed with the council on fish, but found that the 2004 analysis of effects on amphibians, which the council had also challenged, satisfied the requirements of the acts.

Sacramento Bee, 2/5/12

UK Guardian Piece on EDCA Low-Carbon Fuel Decision

Today's UK Guardian has a lengthy piece over California's Air Resource Board's legal battle over its low carbon fuel standard, which highlights the EDCA ruling and its potentially enormous impact (excerpt below):

California's low-carbon fuel standard is the world's first attempt to require oil suppliers to slash the carbon footprint of their motor fuels, measured not just by emissions from tailpipes but across their full lifecycle, from extraction to combustion. Eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, and the European Union, are closely tracking California's case because they are working to adopt similar rules.

The state's influential Air Resources Board, or CARB, adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in 2009 as part of its landmark global warming law, A.B. 32. The agency was supposed to begin enforcing the rule on Jan. 1, 2012. But oil companies, which say it unfairly penalizes high-carbon fuels like oil sands crude, have fought furiously to kill the standard. And on Dec. 29, a federal judge in Fresno, Calif., handed them a victory by ruling that CARB can't enforce the measure until an outstanding lawsuit by the oil industry and ethanol advocates is resolved in 2013.

The judge, Lawrence J. O'Neill, a Pres. George W. Bush appointee, said the rule unconstitutionally discriminates against out-of-state fuel sources and regulates commercial activity outside California's borders.

A week later, CARB appealed O'Neill's decision and asked a federal court in San Francisco to reverse it. An agency spokesperson told InsideClimate News this week that CARB will request a stay of the injunction "very shortly" as it awaits a decision on the appeal. National environmental groups Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Conservation Law Foundation are providing legal help to CARB.

Both sides are playing for huge stakes.

If CARB and the conservationists win the appeal, the agency can immediately mandate that oil importers, refiners and fuel blenders meet the target they've set for 2012—to cut the "carbon intensity" of their fuel mix by a quarter of one percent. (The policy calls for a 10 percent reduction by 2020.)

That could send a signal to other states and countries that are waiting on California to follow suit. For months, EU states have been locked in their own battle over whether to implement the EU Fuel Quality Directive that labels fuel imports from the oil sands as "dirty," with Canada accused of heavy lobbying to delay action.

But if CARB loses the appeal—and the oil and ethanol industries ultimately win their lawsuit in 2013—it could delay California's low-carbon fuel standard for years and discourage similar efforts elsewhere.

Both opponents and supporters of the rule say that whatever happens will have a big impact on the market for Alberta's tar sands in California and across the world.

Sacramento Lawsuit Filed Over Homewood Ski Resort's Expansion Plans

A ski resort expansion project that took five years and a final marathon, nine-hour meeting to earn a final approval in December, came up against another roadblock this week.

Earthjustice, which is representing environmentalist groups –Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore –  sued the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Placer County over their approval of Homewood Mountain Resort’s $250 million expansion.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, asked a federal court to reject an inadequate Environmental Impact Report and to stop the construction of a 325-unit complex along California’s scenic west shore of Lake Tahoe. The lawsuit seeks a new environmental impact report of the project’s effects on Lake Tahoe.

Examiner.com, 1/7/12

Fresno Court Blocks Low-Carbon Fules Rule

A federal judge moved Thursday to block California from enforcing its first-in-the-nation mandate for cleaner, low-carbon fuels, saying the rules favor biofuels produced in the state.

The lawsuit challenging the state regulations, which were adopted as part of the state’s landmark 2006 global warming law, was filed in federal court last year by a coalition including the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association and the Consumer Energy Alliance.

Fresno-based U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence O’Neill’s written ruling Thursday said the low-carbon fuel rules violated the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause by discriminating against crude oil and biofuels producers located outside California.

Washington Post, 12/29/11.

Conservation Suit Accuses Farmers Of Illegally Discharging Polluted Groundwater

California fishing and conservation groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday in federal court, accusing farmers of illegally discharging polluted groundwater into tributaries of the San Joaquin River.

The suit is the latest move in a decades-long battle over selenium-tainted farmland and agricultural drainage problems on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley.

The suit claims the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority allowed contaminated groundwater to co-mingle with irrigation drain water.

The mixture was then discharged without a federal wastewater permit into a canal and a slough that feed to the San Joaquin River and San Francisco Bay-Delta, the lawsuit states.

Mercury News, 11/9/11

Environmental Groups Challenge Forest Service Approval Of Snowmobiles In National Forests

"Three environmental groups say the U.S. Forest Service approved snowmobiles in National Forests without proper environmental review, in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades mountains."   Courthouse News, 11/4/11.