Opinion ID: 409483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State of California's standing.

Text: Webco argues that the State of California lacks standing because it cannot demonstrate injury from an inadequate EIS. We disagree. To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must allege that the challenged action has caused injury in fact and that the interest sought to be protected is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question. City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 670 (9th Cir. 1975) (quoting Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152, 90 S.Ct. 827, 829, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)). A governmental entity wishing to challenge an EIS satisfies these requirements if it is in geographical proximity to the Proposed Action's site, and is one of the governmental entities a federal agency must consult in the EIS process under § 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (1976). Id. 521 F.2d at 670-72. California satisfies the first requirement because the RARE II allocations will affect lands owned by California. The second requirement is also satisfied because the state agency that brought suit here, the California State Resources Agency, is one of the State ... agencies ... which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards that must be consulted under § 102(2)(C). 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).