Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • O
  • Oregon Natural Desert Association v. GreenOregon Natural Desert Association v. Green
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Green

United States District Court for the District of Oregon
953 F.Supp. 1133 (1997)


In 1988, Congress designated the Donner und Blitzen Wild and Scenic River (river) as a wild river under the federal wild-and-scenic-river system. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act), 16 U.S.C. § 1273(b)(1), defined wild rivers as “free of impoundments, and generally inaccessible except by trail.” Section 1283(a) of the Act required the river-management agency to closely examine any road-construction activities in the vicinity of the river. In 1991, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (defendant) hired scientists to survey and report on sensitive plants and unique natural areas in the river corridor (corridor). The scientists prepared a report that recommended ending cattle grazing within the corridor, due to the adverse effects that grazing had on riparian vegetation. In 1993, the BLM released a river plan based on certain values that included vegetation, fish, and wildlife. The river plan authorized cattle grazing, parking-lot construction, secondary-access-road improvement, and a water-diversion project within the corridor. The Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) and other environmental groups (plaintiffs) sought an injunction to prevent the BLM from implementing the river plan. ONDA argued that the river plan failed to protect and enhance plants and fisheries as required by § 1281(a) of the Act, which required the managing agency to protect and enhance river values without limiting uses that did not substantially interfere with the public use and enjoyment of those values. The BLM claimed that its decision to allow grazing within parts of the corridor was entitled to deference, because the Act did not define the term “substantially interfere,” and because the BLM’s decision properly balanced cattle grazing with the protection and enhancement of river values.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Haggerty, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial