LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

STEVEN LEWIS KANDRA v UNITED STATES Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: SLKVUS183249, Plaintiff: STEVEN LEWIS KANDRA, State: OR Oregon, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>SLKVUS183249, Klamath, Water, United States, Environment, Resources, Reclamation, Plan, Biops, Rpas, Nmfs, Esa, Coho Salmon, Agency, Irrigation Water, Klamath River, Fws, Declaration, Natural Resources, County Counsel, Nepa, Water Rights, Ukl, Preliminary Injunction, Eis, Consultation, Government, Scientific Evidence, Iron Gate Dam, Critical Habitat , ContentID: 120250225

Case Documents
1   OPINION AND ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 124100
25 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 25 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION AND ORDER

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
WATER
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENT
PLAINTIFFS
RESOURCES
RECLAMATION
PLAN
BIOPS
RPAS
NMFS
ESA
COHO SALMON
AGENCY
IRRIGATION WATER
KLAMATH RIVER
FWS
DECLARATION
NATURAL RESOURCES
COUNTY COUNSEL
NEPA
WATER RIGHTS
UKL
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
EIS
CONSULTATION
GOVERNMENT
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
IRON GATE DAM
CRITICAL HABITAT
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 7                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

 8 STEVEN LEWIS KANDRA; DAVID CACKA;                )
      KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT;                  )
 9 TULELAKE IRRIGATION DISTRICT; and                )
      KLAMATH WATER USERS ASSOCIATION,              )
10                                                  )
                 Plaintiffs,                        )
11                                                  )
           and                                      )Civ. No. 01-6124-AA
12                                                  )
      CITY OF KLAMATH FALLS, KLAMATH                )
13 COUNTY, MODOC COUNTY, and                        )
      LON BAILEY,                                   )
14                                                  )
                 Plaintiffs-Intervenors,            )
15                                                  )
           v.                                       )
16                                                  )OPINION AND ORDER
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GALE                )
17 NORTON, Secretary of the                         )
      Interior; DON EVANS, Secretary                )
18 of Commerce,                                     )
                                                    )
19               Defendants,                        )
                                                    )
20         and                                      )
                                                    )
21 KLAMATH TRIBES; YUROK TRIBE;                     )
      THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, et al.,               )
22                                                  )
                 Defendants-Intervenors,            )
23                                       )
24 Stephen A. Hutchinson
      Douglas M. DuPriest
25 Hutchinson, Cox, Coons & DuPriest
      777 High Street, Suite 200
26 Eugene, OR 97401
27 ///
28 1       - OPINION AND ORDER



SNIPPETS:
  • 514 Walnut Street Klamath Falls,
  • 13 Thomas M. Buckwalter Modoc County Counsel
  • Environment & Natural Resources Division
  • Stephen M. MacFarlane United States Department of Justice
  • 14 Bureau of Reclamation from implementing the Klamath
  • 15 Reclamation Project 2001 Annual Operations Plan ("2001 Plan" or
  • water elevations of Upper Klamath Lake
  • 18 endangered sucker fish and threatened coho salmon.
  • no irrigation water deliveries will be made to the
  • 21 Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining Reclamation from implementing the
  • 14 States "appropriated all available water rights in the Klamath River
  • 21 the mouth of UKL, regulates flows in the lower Klamath River.
  • Iron Gate Dam in California.
  • 12 Under the ESA, Reclamation must not engage in any action that is
  • Pacific Ocean has been designated as a "critical habitat" for the
  • 25 Declaration of Glenn Moore, ¶¶ 4, 6, 8, 11.
  • initiation of formal consultation under the ESA.
  • 16 FWS began formal consultation and issued a draft Biological
  • and proposed RPAs of minimum water flows in Klamath River below Iron
  • their final BiOps on the effects of the Project on the suckers,
  • NMFS Administrative Record, Volume III, 105.
  • 21 "the government") and proposed defendants-intervenors to respond by
  • 27 See The Wilderness Society's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
  • best scientific evidence available in their respective BiOps.
  • Neither NEPA nor the ESA provide a private cause of action for the
  • an agency decision must be upheld unless it is
  • 12 specifically find that an EIS was required for the 2001 Plan.4
  •    |