Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Salazar

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jul 17, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
Juge
O’Grady., L.
Hug, Jr, P.
Paez, R.A.
Numéro de référence
No. 09-17661
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Dessalement de l'eau Espèces menacées Espèces végétales protégées Gestion des resources en eau douce Espèces animales protégées Espèces halieutiques protégées Droit d'agir en justice Protection des espèces Droits d'utilisation de l'eau
Résumé
The delta smelt is a small fish endemic to the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers Delta Estuary which was declared endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act in 1993. Though previously abundant, the population of the delta smelt has diminished markedly in the last several decades. Plaintiffs, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several conservation groups, argue that in 2005 the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) renewed forty-one water service contracts with various water users without conducting an adequate consultation under § 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and that the contracts jeopardize the existence of the delta smelt. The contracts at issue fall into two groups: (1) users who obtain water from the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC Contractors); and (2) parties who claim to hold water rights senior to those held by the Bureau with regard to the Central Valley Project (CVP) and who previously entered into settlement contracts with the Bureau (Settlement Contractors. In this split decision the majority affirms the district court in determining that the contracts do not violate § 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and illegally threatens the existence of the delta smelt. Additionally, the majority ruled, ". . .the Bureau's discretion is limited with regard to the Settlement Contracts so that § 7(a)(2) of the ESA is not triggered. The Bureau's hands are tied historically by those asserting senior water rights in the CVP. The Bureau was required to acknowledge such rights in order to operate the CVP, which it did by entering the Settlement Contracts. We agree with the district court.
Texte intégral
COU-159573.pdf