Opinion ID: 65019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Consider Impacts

Text: An EA must analyze both the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action that are reasonably foreseeable, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(ii); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16(a) & (b); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7, which we have defined as effects that are sufficiently likely to occur that a person of ordinary prudence would take [them] into account in reaching a decision. City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth, 420 F.3d 440, 453 (5th Cir.2005). Reasonable foreseeability does not include highly speculative harms that distort[ ] the decisionmaking process by emphasizing consequences beyond those of greatest concern to the public and of greatest relevance to the agency's decision. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 355-56, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [A] `but for' causal relationship is insufficient to make an agency responsible for a particular effect under NEPA and the relevant regulations. Rather, a plaintiff mounting a NEPA challenge must establish that an alleged effect will ensue as a `proximate cause,' in the sense meant by tort law, of the proposed agency action. City of Shoreacres, 420 F.3d at 452. Appellants argue that FWS was required to analyze the effect of establishing the refuge on the City's water supply and urban planning process, given projected population growth. The cases cited by Appellants are inapposite, however, since they concern the effect of federal actions on existing water sources, not proposed water sources. See Sierra Club v. Marsh, 769 F.2d 868 (1st Cir.1985) (effect of port development runoff); City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661 (9th Cir.1975) (effect of industrial development runoff); California v. Dep't of Transp., 260 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D.Cal.2003) (effect of airport construction); Simmans v. Grant, 370 F.Supp. 5 (S.D.Tex.1974) (effect of eliminating water source). Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority for the proposition that an agency must account for the effects on a municipal water supply of precluding a proposed but as-yet-nonexistent water source. Further, the effects of establishing the refuge, and thus precluding the reservoir, are highly speculative and cannot be shown to be the proximate cause of future water shortages in Dallas. The City and TWDB never committed to constructing the reservoir and may never have done so, or may have constructed a reservoir at another site. Besides including it in periodically updated planning documents, the City and TWDB have never taken any concrete steps toward constructing the reservoir, such as seeking permits, acquiring property, or commencing any of the hydrological, fiscal, or environmental studies necessary to a major public works project. In fact, the City and TWDB have never even settled upon the exact position of the dam or footprint of the reservoir. Thus, the City and TWDB have never identified the precise role the reservoir even if constructed and tapped in 2060 will play in supplying the region's future water needs. Further, the City argues that water shortages in the region will begin as early as 2010, yet the reservoir would not be tapped earlier than 2060. Given the uncertainty over whether the reservoir will be constructed and its impact on water supplies, and the long time frame for the project, the effects of establishing the refuge on water supplies are not concrete enough, nor closely enough related to the federal action, to require that they be included in the EA.