The Department of Energy could sell 47,000 acres in an area with five endangered species to Occidental Petroleum without consulting the Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled.
The federal legislation authorizing the sale of land outside Bakersfield allowed the sale to go forward without an endangered species consultation, and without Occidental applying for a new "take" permit under the Endangered Species Act, the court held.
National Petroleum Reserve – 1, also called Elk Hills, lies about 25 miles south of Bakersfield. It is one of the nation's biggest oil fields, but it also contains at least four endangered animals and one endangered plant. Pursuant to Congressional direction, DOE has extracted oil from the field at a high rate since 1976. During that time, DOE consulted with FWS three times. Most recently FWS issued a "biological opinion" in November 1995. The FWS established several mitigation measures (but did not require participation in a habitat conservation plan) and issued an "incidental take" permit under section 10 of the ESA, which allows development that could otherwise threaten a species' survival.
In February 1996, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (DAA) of 1996, which directed DOE to sell Elk Hills within two years. In October 1997, DOE accepted a purchase offer from Occidental.
The Tinoqui-Chalola Council of Kitanemuk and Yowlumne Tejon Indians, and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity sued. They claimed DOE violated section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) by not consulting with FWS prior to completing the sale, and by failing to ensure the sale would not jeopardize continued existence of endangered and threatened species. District Court Judge Oliver Wagner ruled the suit was moot because the sale had been completed. Alternatively, he determined that Congress waived Section 7 with regard to the Elk Hills sale.
The Southwest Center (but not the Indians) appealed. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled the case was not moot but held that Congress overrode Section 7 to allow the sale to proceed quickly. A key point for the court was the Defense Authorization Act's provision allowing the Secretary of Energy to transfer DOE's incidental take permit to the Elk Hills purchaser.
"Because the incidental take statement is generally nontransferable, this provision reflects Congress's intent to permit the purchaser to continue operations under the same terms and conditions applicable to the DOE without requiring the DOE to reinitiate consultation with the FWS and without requiring the purchaser to first obtain a permit pursuant to section 10 of the ESA," Judge David Thompson wrote for the court.
The court further noted that the DAA allowed the purchaser to operate under the incidental take permit only if its activities were identical to those of the DOE. Thus, DOE fulfilled its Section 7 obligations to protect the rare species because a change in activities would require Occidental to seek a new take permit, the court held.
The Case:
Tinoqui-Chalola Council of Kitanemuk and Yowlumne Tejon Indians v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 99-16384, 00 C.D.O.S. 280, filed November 20, 2000.
The Lawyers:
For Southwest Center for Biological Diversity: Daniel Rohlf, Portland, Oregon.
For DOE: Greer Goldman, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
A federal appellate court has overturned a land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management and a private company that hoped to develop a regional landfill in Imperial County. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the BLM grossly underestimated the value of its land where the landfill was proposed.
The BLM relied on an appraisal that said the "highest and best use" of the 1,745 acres in question was open space or mine waste storage. The appraisal did not...
Environmentalists were victorious in one of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' first interpretations of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act. The Ninth Circuit held that two environmental organizations could sue a Northern California lumber company for alleged Clean Water Act violations because the supposed pollution harmed members' recreational use of a creek.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina citizens could sue the operator of a hazardo...
A development agreement between San Luis Obispo County and the developer of a subdivision and resort did not amount to an unconstitutional contracting away of the county's police power, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The opinion validates development agreements as legitimate planning tools and appears to erase any lingering doubts about the constitutionality of the practice.
The Second District Court of Appeal has overturned a City of Los Angeles decision not to permit construction of a billboard, and the court indicated the city could be liable for revenue the would-be sign builder lost.
The opinion by Justice Rueben Ortega strongly suggests that political pressure from the mayor's office influenced the city's Board of Building and Safety Commissioners. The board initially refused to revoke the billboard permit on appeal. After the mayor's office intervened, t...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
A developer is not entitled to reimbursement or damages from a consultant hired by a local government to complete an environmental impact report, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled. Even when the consultant fails to complete an EIR in a timely manner, the consultant owes no contractual duty to the developer that paid for the consultant, the court concluded.
In the first decision of its kind, a divided Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has declared that the City of Goleta's mobile home rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking.
