7852

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7852
• Author: Bolin, J. H.
• Title: Of Razorbacks and Reservoirs
• USFW Year: 1993
• USFW - Doc Type: The Endangered Species Act's Protection of Endangered Colorado River Basin Fish
• Copyright Material: YES

VIEW

[Vol. 11

OF RAZORBACKS AND RESEF'F')TRS

1993]

rance of such for-
ignificant portion
ltion will require
ber management
ngle construction
lr and less politi-
essful suit on be-
I in Texas.92 The
rth forest, and its
alter its ongoing
ram designed to

tion of water rights by a federal court, or even permitting
FWS to set withdrawal limits which would bind a state water
commission, would break new ground in enforcement of the
ESA.
A final suit seeking to use the ESA to force the federal
,government to undertake regional resource planning is Pa-
cific Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'ns u. Lujan,98 which
$CLDF filed in California Federal District Court in 1992. In
that suit the plaintiffs alleged that the Bureau of Reclama-
tion was in violation of the ESA section 7 Reasonable and
. Prudent Alternative99 to which it had agreed in order to pro-
. ;tect endangered runs of spawning chinook salmon. According
. .,tothe plaintiffs, the Bureau failed on an almost constant ba-
sis to comply with its agreement to maintain daily average
water temperatures of no more than fifty-six degrees Fahren-
heit in the stretch of the Sacramento River below one of its
dams. Because it released too much cool water from its reser-
voir in early spring in order to supply agricultural users, the
Bureau was unable to maintain a low enough water tempera-
ture during the summer. Plaintiffs argued that the Bureau
.was required by the ESA to insure that it had sufficient cool
water to meet its obligations to protect the salmon before it
allocated water for other uses. The Bureau eventually agreed
to alternative reservoir releases that would enable it to meet
its temperature obligations for 1992, and so the suit was dis-
missed without prejudi'ce. The settlement leaves several key
questions unresolved, however. Chief among these is
whether or not the ESA's requirements trump the Bureau of
Reclamation's obligations to provide water for consumptive
uses.lOO

:SA litigation is
:mtly decided in
the ESA to limit
ch supplies San
; and ranchers in
l aquifer are the
rter and for sev-
The court ruled
) designate mini-
the Texas blind

Water Commis-
e species in jeop-
ure failed to act
,
ng withdrawals
;ulation has, of
:tates. Realloca-

., .

,th A. Foley, The Tar-
Species Act and the
992).
~ 1988), affd in part
991).

~
..~

98. No. CIV-S-92 1492 LKK (E.D. Cal. 1992). This account of the suit is
based on a telephone interview with Michael Sherwood of SCLDF's Seattle of-
fice, plaintiff's attorney (Nov. 4, 1992), and the briefs and letter of notice of
intent to file citizen suit under ESA section 11, 16 D.S.C. ~ 1540(g) (1988), filed
in the case.
99. 16 D.S.C. ~ 1536(bX3)(A) (1988).
100. See Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy Dist. v. Watt, 549 F. Supp. 704,
710 (D. Nev. 1982) (holding that the Secretary of the Interior was required to
utilize all of the water from Stampede reservoir for the benefit of an endangered
fish, the cui-ui, in preference to the Washoe Act's requirement that the Secre-

;.1.,

(W.D. Tex. Jan. 3D,

l'.