Source: http://docshare.tips/coalition-lawsuit_58c52366b6d87f616d8b5d37.html?utm_source=docshare&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=5c6060b308bbc5d60c072e8b
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:42:15+00:00

Document:
authorizing the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s (“SNWA’s”) Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project (the “GWD Project”) and granting a right-of-way (“ROW”) to the Southern Nevada Water Authority (“SNWA”), for the construction and operation of a vast pipeline system to convey groundwater from central-eastern Nevada to southern Nevada, most particularly the Las Vegas Valley as part of the GWD Project. The proposed GWD Project would comprise the pumping of massive amounts of groundwater in perpetuity from arid rural valleys within the regional groundwater system of the carbonate rock province of eastern Nevada and western Utah and the extensive infrastructure to convey the groundwater SNWA proposes to pump from Spring, Snake, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys in White Pine and Lincoln Counties for use in the Las Vegas Valley in southern Clark County.
Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
1346(a)(2), because the United States is a Defendant and this action arises under the laws of the United States, including the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 41 U.S.C. §§ 4311 et seq., the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., and the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. 7. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
is the largest civic organization of health care professionals in Utah, with over 230 members, primarily physicians, but also other health care professionals, biologists, toxicologists, engineers, air quality specialists and the general public. UPHE is concerned about the health risks present in our environment, based on the overwhelming, convincing evidence in the medical literature demonstrating a wide array of chronic diseases are more common among people who are exposed to more air pollution, particulates especially. UPHE is dedicated to protecting the health and well-being of the citizens of Utah by promoting science-based education and approaches to the management and use of our natural resources. Members of UPHE live in, use and enjoy areas that will be impacted by the GWD Project. UPHE submitted comments on the environmental impact statement during the NEPA review process.
is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior and is responsible for managing most of the public lands and resources in Nevada and Utah that would be directly and indirectly affected by the GWD Project and thus by the grant of the requested ROW for the GWD Project. In that capacity, the BLM is responsible for implementing and complying with federal law, including the federal laws implicated by this action.
involvement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(d).
in this title shall . . . preempt Nevada or Utah State water law; or . . . “limit or supersede existing water rights or interest in water rights under Nevada or Utah State law.” Id. at § 301(d)(2)-(3).
federal agency with “direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking” or any federal agency with the “authority to license any undertaking” must, prior to expenditure of the funds or issuance of the license, “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register [and] afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation . . .
“policy of the United States to protect and preserve” the inherent rights of Indians “to believe, express, and exercise” their traditional religions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1996.
action would ever be taken. Both committees are to have representatives from SNWA. Thus, given that the committees operate on a consensus framework, the committees that control the entire process of acknowledging environmental impacts and deciding how to respond to such impacts have been structured so as to favor continued extraction of groundwater. The COM Plan makes scant provision for third party involvement in the case that consensus is not reached, and is so vague as to practically guarantee that the determination of the third party will carry little if any weight and will not be enforceable.
lacking critical information about the project and its impacts to these resources. In particular, project descriptions for well sites have not been provided to the Defendants by the applicant. Using "groundwater development areas" in the EIS for impacts analysis purposes leaves out of the NEPA analysis large areas with SNWA water rights applications. If approved, these additional water resources would be transported through the SNWA pipeline on the BLM ROW.
and in the project area include desert tortoise, pygmy rabbit, greater sage-grouse, western burrowing owl, other special status raptors (golden eagle, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk,), other special status birds, ten bat species, dark kangaroo mouse, reptiles, and Mojave poppy bee. At least 25 species of native springsnails, 37 species of fish, 4 species of amphibians, the southwestern willow flycatcher, pronghorn antelope, mule deer and elk, plus many other species are threatened by the predicted impacts to habitat caused by the GWD Project. See Final EIS, Apps. F3.6, F3.7. Some of these species are already protected by the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) such as the Moapa dace, White River spinedace, Pahranagat roundtail chub, White River springfish, Hiko White River springfish and Pahrump poolfish, Big Springs spinedace, and southwestern willow flycatcher; other species have been found to be warranted for protections under the ESA, including the greater sage grouse and relict leopard frog; other species such as 25 springsnails and the northern leopard frog have been found warranted for a 12-month review under the ESA. See Final EIS, Apps. F3.6, F3.7. Still others such as over 11 new or undescribed species of cave fauna or dozens of other aquatic or terrestrial species depend on the conditions of the Great Basin ecosystems and its ties to the groundwater systems, but have not received extensive inventory or scientific study.
radioactive materials deposited downwind from historic atomic weapons tests on the former Nevada Test Site. The Final EIS discloses that for the whole GWD Project, which Defendants still ultimately may approve, at least 21,518 tons of new, cumulative increased PM10 emissions will be generated per year as a result of 10-foot or greater drawdown due to the GWD Project’s groundwater pumping.
(Final EIS at 3.1-70.) The Final EIS also discloses that for just Alternative F, which Defendants have approved, at least 15,434 tons of new, cumulative increased PM10 emissions will be generated per year as a result of 10-foot or greater drawdown due to the GWD Project’s groundwater pumping. (Final EIS at 3.1-79.) This generation of substantial additional quantities of hazardous particulate matter poses a significant risk of serious health impacts on downwind communities, including Salt Lake City, which could lead to increased rates of disease and death. The dust will also impair the scenic and visual quality of the impacted basins and surrounding areas, including the Great Basin National Park and Congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas and potential Wilderness found in Wilderness Study Areas.
effects issues associated with the proposed action; (2) establish the proper geographic scope for the analysis; (3) establish an appropriate time frame or quantitative thresholds for the identification or analysis of such effects; or (4) identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and/or human communities of concern.
impacts from the GWD Project, and specifically its proposed groundwater pumping, to an arbitrarily truncated 200-year time frame. Defendants cut off any consideration of future impacts from the GWD development project despite the fact that the GWD Project is proposed to operate and continue pumping and exporting groundwater from the targeted groundwater system on an unprecedented level in perpetuity. Defendants’ refusal to consider the potential impacts of the GWD Project’s continuous massive groundwater pumping beyond 200 years also was arbitrary because the Project Proponent’s and Defendants’ own model, as well as the uniform available scientific information that was submitted as part of the comments during the NEPA review process, clearly indicate that the impacts of the GWD Project will continue to grow in severity and geographic scope as the Project’s pumping continues well beyond 200 years. Defendants’ decision to truncate analysis of groundwater pumping impacts at the 200-year point also is arbitrary and capricious because Defendants have commonly analyzed the effects of groundwater development associated with mining projects beyond a 200-year time period.
For the purposes of this Complaint, the term “cultural resources” includes without limitation: any place, object, burial, plant, animal, fish, water source, natural resource, or landscape determined by the Tribe to be culturally, traditionally, historically or religiously significant in accordance with federal or Tribal law and Tribal custom and tradition.
2007, and that its Tribal consultation efforts are “ongoing.” See Final EIS, “Comments and Responses to Tribal Governments” at 23. In fact, the Defendants have failed to engage in meaningful Tribal consultation with individual Tribal governments on a “government-togovernment” basis. Merely including the term “government-to-government” consultation in the Final EIS does not transform an informal, public meeting into an official government consultation with a Tribal government’s duly elected leaders.
approve SNWA’s GWD Project and grant the ROW with various objectives and management directives contained in the BLM’s Ely District Resource Management Plan (“RMP”), which constrain management decisions concerning land and resource use on public lands managed by the BLM that comprise much of the area in which the GWD Project is to be built and that will be affected by the Project’s proposed groundwater pumping. These include objectives and management directives from the Ely District RMP concerning management of vegetation and cultural resources, and continued livestock grazing, in the areas that would be impacted by the GWD Project. The inconsistency of Defendants’ decisions in the Final EIS and ROD with their own policies, priorities, and/or directives in the Ely District RMP are reflective of the arbitrary and capricious manner in which Defendants decided to approve the GWD Project and grant the requested ROW before engaging in a sound, well-grounded review process under NEPA and FLPMA.
project, and given that there is serious doubt as to whether such water rights ever could be validly granted to SNWA, Defendants’ reliance in the Final EIS and ROD on the invalid issuance of such water rights to SNWA – and the State Engineer’s subsequently invalidated finding that the proposed groundwater development could be properly, sustainably pursued – must be reexamined in light of the invalidation of SNWA’s supposed water rights and the eventual determination of what amount of groundwater if any can properly be developed and exported from these valleys. Accordingly, Defendants clearly should, and have been asked explicitly to, withdraw the Final EIS and ROD and prepare a Supplemental EIS that takes into account the analytical deficiencies found by the State Courts with regard to both the amount of water that is sustainably available and the inadequacies of the existing COM Plan, whatever further guidance emerges from the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision on SNWA’s GWD Project water rights applications, and any recalculation of what if any groundwater rights can be properly permitted by the State Engineer on remand.
Defendants failed to adequately evaluate the purpose and need for the Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project. 143. An EIS must properly define the “purpose and need” of the action. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 1502.13. If the purpose and need of the action is too narrowly defined, then the range of alternatives considered will likewise be too narrow in scope. National Parks Conservation Assn v.
accordance with the law and procedures required by law, because Defendants failed to adequately evaluate the purpose of and need for the project. 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (D).
accordance with the law and procedures required by law, because Defendants failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (D).
effects on air quality due to increased dust emissions from relicted lands where decreased spring and stream flows caused by the GWD Project’s proposed groundwater pumping.
mitigation measures and relies on an inadequate COM Plan, which fails to identify either what level of impact would be acceptable or what mitigation measures would be implemented if unacceptable impacts occur. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), 1508.20.
to the extent practicable,” in the preparation of an EA, 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b), and to “(a) [m]ake diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures,” to (b) [p]rovide public notice of . . . the availability of environmental documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who may be interested or affected,” and to “(d) solicit appropriate information from the public.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1506.6(a), (b), (d).
purposes of [NEPA] will be furthered by doing so.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(2).
Supplemental EIS for notice and comment. This new information includes, but is not limited to: The USGS Geo-Hydrological Report on Potential Impacts to Great Basin National Park, the 2012 Natural Resources Defense Council Pipe Dreams Report, the 2012 UNLV Center for Business and Economic Research Population Estimates, and evidence introduced during the fall 2011 Nevada State Engineer Hearing on SNWA’s water rights applications, including air quality impacts evidence and mitigation cost evidence.
authorizing use or occupancy of the public lands be in accordance with the applicable land use, or resource management, plan. See 43 CFR pts. 2091, 2801, 2920.
shall require compliance with air quality standards established pursuant to applicable federal or state law. 43 C.F.R. § 2920.7(b)(3).
is not possible without knowing the precise location of wellfield development. A supplemental EIS should be required once SNWA’s water rights applications are finally adjudicated and information regarding the locations of wells and pipeline infrastructure is available.
properly consult with potentially affected Indian Tribes.
take into consideration the views of, the Goshute Tribe, the Ely and Duckwater Shoshone Tribes, or any other Indian tribe that would be affected by this massive groundwater development and pipeline Project. Defendants’ actions are therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
Tribes’ reserved water rights during the environmental review process is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
or as may be deemed by the Court to be just, proper, and equitable to remedy the violations of law complained of herein.

References: § 2412
 § 470
 § 1500
 § 301
 § 1996

§ 1502
 v.

 § 1501
 § 1502
 § 2920
 § 706
 § 706