Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007

• Description: Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007
• State: CO
• Date: 12/7/2007
• Title: Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Court Documents

'
1
INTRODUCTION
2
The endangered humpback chub has survived in the lower basin of the Colorado
3
River and the Grand Canyon for three -to -five million years. It evolved over time to the
'
4
specific environmental and habitat conditions found in the River's deep river canyons. Yet,
5
in just the last 45 years, Glen Canyon Dam and its operation have caused the chub to
'
6
become threatened with extinction on the lower Colorado River. In fact, the U.S. Fish and
7
Wildlife Service (FWS) concluded in a Biological Opinion that Defendants U.S Bureau of
"Reclamation ")
8
Reclamation and Commissioner Robert Johnson's (collectively operations
9
of the Dam are jeopardizing the chub and adversely modifying its critical habitat in
10
violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because, among other things, the chub
11
cannot spawn or rear and feed their young in the Colorado River. Reclamation could
12
operate the Dam in a manner that complies with the law and limits the adverse impacts to
'
13
the chub and its critical habitat. However, Reclamation refuses to comply with the ESA
14
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and operate the Dam to ensure the
15
chub's survival and recovery.
16
Through this Motion, Plaintiff Grand Canyon Trust moves for summary judgment
17
on the liability phase of its five Claims for Relief 1 Plaintiffs first three claims stem from
'
18
Reclamation's failure to adhere to the requirements of FWS's Biological Opinion and the
19
resulting violations of the ESA. ESA Section 7(a)(2) mandates that Reclamation's Glen
I'
20
Canyon Dam operations neither jeopardize the endangered humpback chub in the Colorado
21
River nor destroy or adversely modify the chub's designated critical habitat in the Grand
22
Canyon. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In its Biological Opinion, FWS determined that
23
Reclamation's existing Dam operations, which involve water releases under a "Modified
24
Low Fluctuating Flow" regime, violate these ESA section 7(a)(2) prohibitions. Moreover,
'
25
Reclamation has not implemented the seven -month water release program called
26
"Seasonally- Adjusted Steady Flows," as FWS required in the Biological Opinion. The
'
27
1 As appropriate, Plaintiff will pursue remedies after the Court rules on the present
28
Motion.
Memorandum in Support of Pls. ' 1
Motion for Summary Judgment