Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

People of the State of California ex rel. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; County of Imperial, plaintiff, v. United States Department of Interior; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the United States Department of Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael l. Connor, commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, defendants.

País/Territorio
Estados Unidos de América
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Apr 6, 2012
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
United States District Court, District of California
Juez
Battaglia., A.J.
Número de referencia
09cv2233
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Agua, Cuestiones jurídicas, Medio ambiente gen.
Palabra clave
Desalinación del agua Normas sobre calidad del agua Calidad de las aguas dulces/contaminación de las aguas dulces Legitimación para actuar Manejo de recursos hídricos
Resumen
Plaintiffs, Imperial County and the Imperial County Pollution Control District, argued that the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI ) violated the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it approved the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement (CRW DA) in 2003. They argued that implementation of the CRW DA and another Colorado River distribution agreement, the Quantification Settlement Agreement, will cause injury to public health, the environment and fish and wildlife habitats through accelerated salinization of the Salton Sea and increased emissions resulting from greater exposure of the Salton Sea shoreline. According to the federal court, “in lawsuits against the federal government, a state does not have standing to protect quasi-sovereign parens patriae interests because, with respect to the relationships between citizens and the federal government, the United States, and not the state, is presumed to represent the interests of the citizens as parens patriae.” Determining that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge CRW DA, the court further noted that neither plaintiff is regulated by CRW DA, neither claims a right to divert Colorado River water, and neither claims to own land beneath or adjacent to the Salton Sea. Thus, they could show no injury-in-fact, an element necessary to demonstrate standing.
Texto completo
COU-158468.pdf