Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002J23 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Defenders of Wild lift v. Norton. et al. <br /> <br />On March 31, 2003, U.S. District Court Judge James Robertoon issued his order md opinion <br />in the Defenders of Wildlife. et al. vs. Babbitt. et al. Tbis lawsuit revolved around the allegations, <br />by several American environmental organizations in the United States and Mexico, that the <br />government had failed to properly consult under the Endangered Species Act regarding potential <br />impacts to federally listed species in Mexico associated with Reclamation's actions in the United <br />States along the Lower Colorado River. In his decision, the Court denied the plaintiff's motions for <br />summary judgement and granted the defendant's cross-motions for summary judgement. <br /> <br />In the Court's opinion, he addressed the following issues: (I) plaintiff's standing; (2) <br />res judicata; (3) mootness; and (4) Endangered Species Act consultation requirements. The Court <br />reached interesting conclusions associated with these issues, and they are briefly discussed in the <br />following. <br /> <br />StandiIJ8 Issues <br /> <br />After a lengthy discussion, the Court ruled that thc plaintiffs did possess adequate standing <br />to bring the suit against the government. The Court determined that the plaintiffs could show "the <br />invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, <br />rather than conjectural or theoretical." The Court determined that the potential impacts to the species <br />could have led to a direct effect on the plaintiffs aesthetic, scientific, recreational, and economic <br />interests. The plaintiffs had all submitted declarations stating that they traveled to the Delta and <br />studied, worked, and recreated in the region. The plaintiffs had asserted that "a proper [Section 7] <br />consultation would help abate the endangerment to the species by requiring stronger protective <br />measures." Even though the Court concluded that Reclamation could not make additional releases, <br />and that Mexico was not compelled to utilize the excess releases for species and habitat <br />conservation, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's had standing to pursue the suit. <br /> <br />Res iudicata <br /> <br />The government and amici had alleged that the Center for Biological Diversity should be <br />barred from relitigating issues that were raised in the Lake Mead lawsuit (Southwest Center for <br />Biological Diversify VS. V.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1119, D. Ariz. 1997). The Court <br />concluded that this was correct, but that the Center was not precluded from pursuing the case against <br />the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). <br /> <br />Mootness <br /> <br />The government alleged that the case was moot because Reclamation had reinitiated <br />Section 7 consultation in 2002 for Lower Colorado Riveroperations and maintenance activities. The <br />Court stated that while the "reinitiated consultation, indeed, preserves and sharpens the controversy," <br />an actual controversy still remained associated with Reclamation's non-discretionary actions and <br /> <br />11 <br />