Riverside Irrigation District v. Andrews

The Riverside Irrigation District and others (the irrigation district) (plaintiff) sought to construct a dam and reservoir on Wildcat Creek (the project). The project would require dredging and depositing the dredged material in a navigable waterway. The Clean Water Act of 1972 required the irrigation district to obtain a permit from the United States Corps of Engineers (the corps) (defendant, through Colonel William Andrews, Jr., Omaha district engineer). If the irrigation district could satisfy specific requirements, it could obtain a national permit that would allow the irrigation district to deposit dredge materials in various locations without further permit submissions. Otherwise, the irrigation district must obtain individual permits for each dredge material deposit. One condition of a nationwide permit was that the project does not threaten an endangered species or that species’ habitat as dictated by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The corps determined that the project would not directly affect an endangered species but concluded that the resulting water impoundment would lead to increased consumptive use of water from the creek, thereby reducing the creek’s flow. According to the corps, that reduced flow would negatively affect the habitat of the whooping crane, an endangered species. Therefore, the corps denied the irrigation district’s application. The irrigation district filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the corps exceeded its authority in considering anything more than the direct result of the project. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado determined that the corps had acted within its authority and that the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act required the corps to reject the nationwide permit application. The irrigation district appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.