Opinion ID: 6972211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The County’s and City’s Standing

Text: In order to show its standing to bring a suit, a plaintiff must first establish that it has been accorded a procedural right to protect its threatened concrete interests. See Douglas County, 48 F.3d at 1500. County and City have shown that NEPA grants each of them the procedural right to protect their concrete interests in this case. Section 4332(2)(C) of NEPA, which mandates an EIS on major federal actions which significantly affect the environment, grants “local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards,” the right to comment on the EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). County and City qualify as such local agencies through Nevada statutes which authorize them to prepare and adopt land management plans with environmental standards. See Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 278.010-278.630. NEPA thus granted County and City, as local agencies empowered to adopt environmental land management plans, a procedural right to protect its land interests. The procedural right claimed'by City and County is identical to that claimed by Douglas County and recognized by this court in Douglas County, 48 F.3d at 1501. Douglas County based its procedural standing on the same right represented by § 4332(2)(C) of NEPA, and was authorized under an Oregon statute almost identical to the pertinent Nevada statute to prepare and adopt land management plans with environmental standards. See id. We held that NEPA had accorded Douglas County the procedural right to protect its interest in land management such that it could satisfy the first element of procedural standing. See id. Accordingly, we hold that NEPA has granted County and City the procedural right required to meet the first element of procedural standing.
In order to establish its standing to bring a suit, a plaintiff must show that it has a threatened concrete interest that is the basis for its standing. See Douglas County, 48 F.3d at 1500. County and City claim that proceeding with the Plan before the preparation of a PEIS studying the “cumulative and synergistic effects” of the various water projects within the Settlement Act will adversely affect both their land and their ability to make plans for and to protect local drinking water. Thus, they contend that the Interi- or’s failure under NEPA to prepare a PEIS threatens their concrete interest in land management. We find that County and City have established this imminent threat to their concrete interests. A plaintiff can establish the requisite threatened concrete interest for standing in cases like this where the plaintiff has the procedural right to protect its interest in land management by showing that it owns or manages land threatened by the challenged action or omission. See Douglas County, 48 F.3d at 1501. The plaintiff must show that the challenged action will threaten its land interests with reasonable probability. See id. at 1501 n. 6. In Douglas County, Douglas County sued the Secretary of the Department of the Interior for failing to prepare an EIS as mandated by NEPA before designating an area of federal land a “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act. In order to show a concrete interest sufficient to establish standing, Douglas County produced an affidavit from the director of the county’s Land Department. The director asserted that the federal government’s land management of this “critical habitat” could adversely affect adjacent land owned by Douglas County. “‘By failing to properly manage for insect and disease control and fire, the federal land management practices threaten the productivity and environment of the adjoining [county] lands.’” 48 F.3d at 1501 (quoting the affidavit). We stated that Douglas County’s “proprietary interest in its lands adjacent to the critical habitat represents [the] necessary ‘concrete interest.’ ” Id. We held that Douglas County had shown the reasonable probability of the threat to its land because it was “logical for the County to assert that its lands could be threatened by how the adjoining federal lands are managed.” Id. Similarly, County and City have produced affidavits establishing that they possess and/or manage lands that would be adversely affected by the transfer of water rights under the Plan and under the fish recovery plan in § 207 of the Settlement Act. Various affiants, including the Mayor of the City and the County’s Manager, stated that the two projects (plus others in the Settlement Act) will cause environmental harm to County and City lands, including fire hazards, airborne particles, erosion, unknown changes to the underground water supply system, and reduced quality of local drinking water. County and City each own or manage land that is in the same watershed as the lands designated for purchase by the Plan. Although the procedure for the purchase of water rights is lengthy, at least two purchase agreements have been accepted by the FWS and other specific land purchases are under consideration. It is reasonably probable that the transfer of a significant amount of water rights from the area adjacent to and surrounding County and City lands will affect those lands adversely in the absence of a PEIS examining their combined effects. Significantly, the Interior’s FEIS on the Plan noted likely adverse effects on the County and City’s groundwater levels and quality. See FEIS § 4.3.3.1. It also stated that there was no data to determine the ultimate effects of the Plan on the groundwater levels and domestic supply of water in the Lahontan Valley. See FEIS § 4.3.3.2. The statement estimated that up to forty percent of the farmland in the Carson Division of the Newlands Project would be retired, see FEIS § 4.5, and noted the potential erosion problems from retired farmland, with concomitant dust problems. See FEIS § 4.4.2. The “cumulative and synergistic” effects of the Settlement Act’s other projects, such as its water' rights acquisition program in § 207 designed to conserve and recover the cui-ui and Lahontan Cutthroat trout, see Settlement Act § 207, have not been studied at all. County and City have shown that the unexplored combined effect of these projects will threaten the environment of County and City lands. ■ County and City have thus established the imminence of the threatened concrete interest necessary for procedural standing. Appellees argue that the County and City do not have standing because they have failed to show the imminence of their injury. Appellees err by placing too much weight on the imminence requirement of injury-in-fact standing. Article III of the Constitution does require that a plaintiffs injury be “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ ” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Appellees, however, broaden this into a constant requirement for a “high degree of immediacy.”' A high degree of immediacy is required only in cases where “the plaintiff alleges only an injury at some indefinite future time, and the acts necessary to make the injury happen are at least partly within the plaintiffs own control.” Id. at 564 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 2130. By contrast, in this case, County and City are asserting an omission by Defendants and do not themselves control the acts causing the injury. Again, this is a case of procedural standing with its lowered standards for immediacy and redressability. See id. at 572 n. 7, 112 S.Ct. 2130; Dovelas County, 48 F.3d at 1501. In this case, although it is not clear when further land purchases will occur and water rights will be transferred to the wetlands, it is clear that the Secretary intends to purchase 55,000 acre feet of water rights in the Carson Division — in County and near City— and has already started. One estimate of the time involved is that it will take twenty years for all the purchases and transfers. It is clear that water rights will also be purchased under the Settlement Act’s other programs. County and City do not have to wait for all purchases and transfers to be completed before they have standing. They have shown that their injury is not hypothetical or speculative, but is imminent, caused by the FWS’s failure to prepare a PEIS, and redressable by the courts. In arguing that the County’s and City’s injuries are not imminent, Defendants rely on the district court’s analysis. The district court held that, in order to show imminence of injury, County and City had to own or manage land “actually affected by the challenged activity, not merely an area ‘adjacent to’ or ‘in the vicinity’ of the affected land.” The district court cited to Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 887-89, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). National Wildlife Federation does not support that conclusion. In National Wildlife Federation, the plaintiffs were challenging a series of decisions called the “land withdrawal review program” of the Bureau of Land Management. The plaintiffs claimed that they would lose recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of the lands opened up to mining. One plaintiff claimed she used lands “in the vicinity of’ a two million acre area, 4500 acres of which had just been opened up to mining. Thus, the plaintiff did not put forward any specific facts to show she was or would be personally affected by the decision, because she only claimed to use “unspecified portions of an immense tract of territory,” parts of which might be mined. 497 U.S. at 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177. Rather, she made a “general allegation of injury.” Id. The Supreme Court held that she had failed to produce specific facts showing an injury. See id. National Wildlife Federation did not hold that all plaintiffs have to use the lands directly affected by the challenged action. Rather, it held that vague allegations of injury were insufficient for standing when unsupported by any specific showing that the plaintiffs’ use of land was affected by the challenged decision. In this case, Appellants have shown that the Settlement Act’s creation of multiple programs which will transfer water rights within County and near City is likely to affect adversely their lands. County and City have shown with reasonable probability that implementation of the Plan prior to producing a PEIS threatens their concrete interests in land and water management.'
To establish their standing to bring this suit under the APA, County and City must show that there has been final agency action which adversely affected them, and that their injury falls within the zone of interests protected by the section of NEPA they claim was violated. See 5 U.S.C. § 702; Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 882-83, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). County and City have met this test. The FWS has effectuated a final agency action by producing its Record of Decision announcing that it would begin purchasing fifty-five thousand acre feet of water within the Carson Division for transfer to wetlands. The Record of Decision and the FEIS fi’om the Interior clearly identified a significant amount of land within Churchill County and near the City of Fallon as land to be purchased by the government at some time. Land purchases have already started. Thus, the Record of Decision represents the “consummation” of the FWS’s decisionmaking process and has determined the various actors’ rights and obligations. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 1168, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997). In addition, County’s and City’s threatened land interests fall within the zone of interests of NEPA. We have previously held that the protection of the environment falls within NEPA’s zone of interests. See Douglas County, 48 F.3d at 1501. Appellants assert that the environmental health of their lands and water supply is threatened by Defendants’ action. Their threatened interest falls within NEPA’s interest in preventing harm to the environment. County and City have established their standing to bring this suit under the APA. In conclusion, County and City have each established their standing to bring this suit against Defendants. We therefore reverse the district court’s summary judgment against County and City.