in the united states district court for the...

1

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLORADO

CivilActionNo.17‐cv‐2563SAVETHECOLORADO,aColoradononprofitcorporation,SAVETHEPOUDRE:POUDREWATERKEEPER,aColoradononprofitcorporation,WILDEARTHGUARDIANS,anonprofitcorporation,LIVINGRIVERS,anonprofitcorporation,andWATERKEEPERALLIANCE,anonprofitcorporation. Petitioners,v.UNITEDSTATESBUREAUOFRECLAMATION,andUNITEDSTATESARMYCORPSOFENGINEERS. Respondents.

PETITIONFORREVIEWOFAGENCYACTION

INTRODUCTION

1. Thiscaseboilsdowntoinadequateanalysisandpoordecisionmaking

resultinginsignificantwaterdiversionsfromthealreadydepletedColoradoRiver.The

ColoradosurgestolifeintheRockyMountains,pickingupmostofitswateralongtheWest

SlopeofColorado,beforeheadingsouthwestanddraininganarid246,000squaremilesof

landacrosssevenwesternstates.Unlikemostrivers,however,theColoradodoesnot

continuetogrowasitmovestothesea—infact,itswatersseldomreachthePacificOcean.

Theprincipalcauseofthisdry‐upisaseriesofmassivetransbasindiversionsthatsend

Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 USDC Colorado of 42

2

ColoradoRiverwatertoColorado’sFrontRange,urbanNewMexico,andSouthern

California,wherethewaterislosttotheriverforever.

2. EventhoughtheColoradohaslongbeenovertaxed,therivercontinuesto

facenewdemands,oftenwithoutadequateidentificationoftheactualneedforthe

proposeddiversionsoradequateconsiderationofthelong‐termconsequencesforthe

healthoftheriver.Thisisexactlytheissueinthiscase.Havingfailedtorationallyconsider

theneedortotakeahardlookattheimpactsoftheproposedproject,theBureauof

Reclamation(“Reclamation”)andtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(“theCorps”)approved

theWindyGapFirmingProject(“FirmingProject”),tofacilitateadiversionfromthe

ColoradoRiversoughtbytheMunicipalSubdistrict(“Subdistrict”)oftheNorthern

ColoradoWaterConservancyDistrict(“NorthernWater”)thatwouldfillanew90,000acre‐

foot(“AF”)1reservoirontheFrontRange.

3. Beginningin1970,theSubdistrictundertookaten‐yearplanningand

analysisprocess.In1981,Reclamationcompletedanenvironmentalimpactstatement

(“EIS”)andapprovedtheoriginalWindyGapproject(“OriginalProject”).TheOriginal

ProjectbegandivertingwaterfromtheColoradoRiverin1985,but,despitethetimeand

moneyspent,theOriginalProjectfailedtosupplyasmuchwaterasanticipated.Inthe

early2000s,theSubdistrictproposedbuildinganewreservoirontheFrontRangeto

1Anacre‐footisequivalentto325,851gallonsofwater,whichisenoughtosupplytwofamiliesoffourforayear.R.Waskom&M.Neibauer,WaterConservationInandAroundtheHome,Colo.StateUniv.Extension,http://extension.colostate.edu/topic‐areas/family‐home‐consumer/water‐conservation‐in‐and‐around‐the‐home‐9‐952/(lastupdatedOct.2014).


3

secureandstorenewfirm(i.e.,consistentlyavailable)watersupplies.Thisproposalisthe

FirmingProject.

4. TheFirmingProjectisanill‐conceivedandunnecessaryprojectwhosetrue

naturehasbeenobscuredbythefederalgovernment’sfailuretoengageinsound

decisionmakingasrequiredbytheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(“NEPA”)andthe

CleanWaterAct(“CWA”).Ratherthanrigorouslyexploringandobjectivelyevaluating

waystomeettheSubdistrict’sactualwatersupplyneeds,thefederalagenciesacceptedthe

Subdistrict’sclaimedneedatfacevalueandonlyconsideredreservoiroptionsthatwould

furthertheSubdistrict’spreconceivedgoalof“firming”WindyGapwatersupplies.This

predispositioninfavoroffixingthefailedprojectinfectedtheentirereviewandapproval

process.

5. Theadministrativerecorddemonstratesthatthegovernmentfellvictimtoa

sunkcostbias.Asunkcostbiasoccurswhenanorganizationinvestsalotoftime,money,

andcapitalintoaproject,theprojectdoesnotfunctionasanticipated,anddespitethe

existenceofbettersolutions,theorganizationstubbornlyforgesaheadwithitsoriginal

choice.Thisscenarioisatextbookcaseofwhatisvariouslycalledescalatingcommitment,

sunkcosts,orlock‐in.See,e.g.,BrianC.Gunia,NiroSivanathan&AdamD.Galinsky,

VicariousEntrapment:YourSunkCosts,MyEscalationofCommitment,45J.EXPERIMENTAL

SOC.PSYCHOL.1238,1238–39(2009);BarryM.Staw,Knee‐DeepintheBigMuddy:AStudyof

EscalatingCommitmenttoaChosenCourseofAction,16ORGANIZATIONALBEHAV.&HUM.

PERFORMANCE27,27–28(1976).


4

6. BecauseoftheinvestmentthatwentintotheOriginalProject,Reclamation

waspredisposedtopursuetheFirmingProjecttoprovidemorewatertoWindyGap

participantswhiledisregardingthepracticablealternativesthatNEPAandtheCWA

require.NEPAaimstoensuresoundgovernmentdecision‐makingbypromotingserious

considerationofallreasonablealternativesthatwouldmeettheunderlyingneed—inthis

case,augmentedwatersupply.However,Reclamationdidnotseriouslyconsider

reasonablealternativestoprovideadditionalwatertoWindyGapparticipantsandallowed

theSubdistricttoplowaheadwithitsoriginalchoice—theFirmingProject—anddouble

downonitsbustedbet.

7. ThroughoutthecourseofthefederalreviewoftheFirmingProject,members

ofSavetheColorado,SavethePoudre:PoudreWaterkeeper,WildEarthGuardians,Living

Rivers,andWaterkeeperAlliance(collectively,“Petitioners”or“ColoradoRiver

Defenders”),amongmanyothers,raisedtheirconcernsaboutalternativesandaboutflaws

andgapsinthedataandanalysis.Despitethesevalidconcernsbroughtbeforethe

reviewingagenciesinatimelyfashion,approvaloftheFirmingProjectcontinued

unchecked.ReclamationandtheCorpsinadequatelyaddressedtheconcerns,

rubberstampedtheSubdistrict’sassertions,andfailedtheirdutiestoindependentlyverify

theresults,data,andanalysisinReclamation’sEIS,asrequiredbyNEPAandtheCWA.

Accordingly,ColoradoRiverDefenderschallengeReclamation’sandtheCorps’Recordsof

DecisionapprovingtheWindyGapFirmingProjectfornumerousNEPA,CWA,and

AdministrativeProcedureAct(“APA”)violations.ColoradoRiverDefendersaskthisCourt

tovacateReclamation’sandtheCorps’RecordsofDecisionandremandthedecisionstothe


5

respondentfederalagenciestoensuretheytakeanindependentandhardlookatthe

FirmingProject,asthelawrequires.

JURISDICTIONANDVENUE

8. ThiscaseisfiledpursuanttoD.C.Colo.LAPR10.2(c)andchallenges

Reclamation’sRecordofDecision,issuedDecember19,2014,andtheCorps’Recordof

Decision,issuedMay16,2017,approvingtheWindyGapFirmingProject.

9. ThisCourthasjurisdictionoverthisactionpursuantto28U.S.C.§1331

(federalquestion),28U.S.C.§1346(civilactionagainsttheUnitedStates),and28U.S.C.§

1361(actiontocompelanofficeroftheUnitedStatestoperformhisduty)becausethis

casearisesunderthefederallawsoftheUnitedStatesandrespondentsareagenciesofthe

UnitedStatesGovernment.

10. ThisCourtmaygrantthereliefrequestedpursuantto28U.S.C.§2201

(authorizingdeclaratoryrelief);28U.S.C.§2202(authorizinginjunctiverelief);and5U.S.C.

§§701‐706(providingforjudicialreviewofagencyactionundertheAPA).

11. Venueliesinthisjudicialdistrictbyvirtueof28U.S.C.§1391(e)becausethe

eventsoromissionsoutofwhichtheseclaimsarisetookplaceinthisdistrict.

12. Thereexistsnowbetweenthepartiesanactual,justiciablecontroversy

withinthemeaningoftheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,28U.S.C.§§2201‐2202.

PARTIES

13. PetitionerSAVETHECOLORADOisagrassroots,free‐standing501(c)(3)

nonprofitorganizationthatstrivestomakeaconsequentialdifferenceintheprotectionand

restorationoftheColoradoRiveranditstributaries.Itsfocusistochallengewater


6

projects,supportalternativestoproposeddamsanddiversions,fightandadapttoclimate

change,supportriverandfishspeciesrestoration,andremoveunnecessarydamsonthe

ColoradoRiver.

14. PetitionerSAVETHEPOUDRE:POUDREWATERKEEPERisa501(c)(3)

nonprofitorganizationthataimstoprotectandrestoretheCachelaPoudreRiver.It

opposeswaterprojectsthatnegativelyaffectriversandinsteadencouragesbetter

alternatives.Itengagesinriverrestorationefforts,promoteseducation,andfosters

coverageinthemedia.

15. PetitionerWILDEARTHGUARDIANSisaregional503(c)(3)nonprofit

organizationworkingtoprotectandrestorewildlife,wildplaces,wildrivers,andthehealth

oftheAmericanWest.Itseekstorestoredynamicflowstowesternrivers,advocatesfor

westernwaterpolicyreform,andfightstorestorehealthyandsustainableaquaticand

riparianecosystemsforfuturegenerations.

16. PetitionerLIVINGRIVERSisa503(c)(3)nonprofitorganizationthatworksto

restoreinundatedrivercanyons,wetlands,andthedeltaoftheColoradoRiver;repeal

antiquatedlawswhichrepresenttheriver’sdeathsentence;reducewaterandenergyuse

andtheirimpactsontheriver;andrecruitconstituentstohelprevivetheColoradoRiver.

17. PetitionerWATERKEEPERALLIANCEisa503(c)(3)nonprofitorganization

dedicatedtoprotectingandrestoringwaterqualitytoensurethattheworld’swatersare

drinkable,fishable,andswimmable.Waterkeeperrepresentstheinterestsof176member

organizationsandaffiliatesintheUnitedStates(and160abroad),aswellasthecollective

interestsofthousandsofindividualsupportingmembersthatlive,work,andrecreatein


7

waterwaysacrossthecountry,includingwaterwaysthatmaybeimpactedasaresultof

theFirmingProject.

18. TheeffectsoftheFirmingProjectwouldadverselyimpactrecreation,

conservation,andeconomicinterestsofoneormoremembersofeachofthepetitioner

organizations.Thesemembershavestandingtosueintheirownright,however,their

participationisnotnecessaryinthissuit.WithouttheFirmingProjecttheseimpactswould

notoccur.

19. Theseimpactedinterestsaretiedtotheriversandlakesthatthepetitioner

organizationsaimtoprotect.

20. Therequestedreliefwillredresstheinjuriesofallpetitionerorganizations

andtheirmembers.

21. RespondentUNITEDSTATESBUREAUOFRECLAMATIONisanagencyofthe

UnitedStateswithintheDepartmentoftheInterior.Reclamationhadprimaryauthority

forconductingandpublishingtheEISunderNEPAfortheFirmingProject.Reclamation

alsoissuedaRecordofDecisiononDecember19,2014,whichpermittedtheFirming

Projecttogoforward.

22. RespondentUNITEDSTATESARMYCORPSOFENGINEERSisanagencyof

theUnitedStateswithintheDepartmentoftheArmy.TheCorpsservedasacooperating

agencyinthedevelopmentoftheEISfortheFirmingProject.TheCorpsreviewedand

authorizedtheCWA404(b)permitfortheFirmingProjectviaaRecordofDecision

publishedonMay16,2017.


8

LEGALBACKGROUND

NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct

23. NEPApromotesinformeddecisionmaking.WildEarthGuardiansv.U.S.

BureauofLandMgmt.,870F.3d1222,1237(10thCir.2017).

24. NEPAimposesadutyonagenciesto“useallpracticablemeans...torestore

andenhancethequalityofthehumanenvironmentandavoidorminimizeanypossible

adverseeffectsoftheiractionsuponthequalityofthehumanenvironment.”40C.F.R.

§1500.2(f).

25. Whenundertakingamajorfederalaction,anagencymust“rigorously

exploreandobjectivelyevaluate”allreasonablealternativestoaproposedaction,inorder

tocomparetheenvironmentalimpactsofallavailablecoursesofaction.42U.S.C.

§4332(C);40C.F.R.§1502.14.

26. Todoso,anagencymustprepareanEISto“serveasanaction‐forcing

device”andto“providefullandfairdiscussionofsignificantenvironmentalimpactsand

shallinformdecisionmakersandthepublicofthereasonablealternatives”toaproposed

project.40C.F.R.§1502.1.

27. Inconsideringidentifiedimpacts,theagencymustconsider“therelevant

dataandarticulatearationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthedecisionmade.”

NewMexicoexrel.Richardsonv.BureauofLandMgmt.,565F.3d683,713(10thCir.2009)

(alterationinoriginal).

28. Courtswillnotdefertoanagency’schoiceofmethodologywhentheagency

doesnotadequatelyexplainitsreliabilityorfailstodiscloseitsshortcomings.Hillsdale


9

Envtl.LossPrevention,Inc.v.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,702F.3d1156,1178(10thCir.

2012);LandsCouncilv.Powell,395F.3d1019,1032(9thCir.2005).

29. NEPArequiresanagencyto“analyzenotonlythedirectimpactsofa

proposedaction,butalsotheindirectandcumulativeimpactsof‘past,present,and

reasonablyforeseeablefutureactionsregardlessofwhatagency(Federalornon‐Federal)

orpersonundertakessuchotheractions.’”Wyomingv.U.S.Dep'tofAgric.,661F.3d1209,

1251(10thCir.2011)(quoting40C.F.R.§1508.7).

30. Cumulativeimpacts“canresultfromindividuallyminorbutcollectively

significantactionstakingplaceoveraperiodoftime.”40C.F.R.§1508.7.Indirectimpacts

are“causedbytheactionandarelaterintimeorfartherremovedindistance,butarestill

reasonablyforeseeable....”40C.F.R.§1508.8(b).

31. NEPArequiresthatagenciesconsider,evaluate,anddisclosetothepublic

“alternatives”totheproposedactionand“study,develop,anddescribeappropriate

alternativestorecommendedcoursesofactioninanyproposalwhichinvolvesunresolved

conflictsconcerningalternativeusesofavailableresources.”42U.S.C.§4332(C)&(E).

32. Further,theevaluationofalternativesmustconstitutea“substantial

treatment,”presentingtheimpactsofthealternativesincomparativeform“sharply

definingtheissuesandprovidingaclearbasisforchoiceamongoptionsbythe

decisionmakerandthepublic.”40C.F.R.§1502.14.

33. Additionally,theagencymustbeobjectiveinfindingareasonedchoiceof

alternativesandmustconsideralternativesthat,whenintegrated,meetthepurpose.


10

UtahnsforBetterTransp.v.U.S.Dep’tofTransp.,305F.3d1152,1168,1170(10thCir.

2002).

34. Theagencymustidentifytheunderlyingpurposeandneedoftheproject.40

C.F.R.§1502.13.

35. Anagencycannot“contriveapurposesoslenderastodefinecompeting

‘reasonablealternatives’outofconsideration.”Simmonsv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,120

F.3d664,666(7thCir.1997).

36. Aproposedproject’spurposeandneedistoonarrowwhenanagencyfailsto

conductanindependentanalysisandinsteadadoptsanapplicant’sproposedpurposethat

precludesreasonablealternativestotheproposedproject.Davisv.Mineta,302F.3d1104,

1113,1119(10thCir.2002).

37. Thereviewingagencycommitserrorifitacceptsaproject’spurposeorneed

asgivenbytheprimebeneficiaries.SeeSimmons,120F.3dat667.

38. AnagencycannotconstrictitsNEPAanalysistoonlythealternativesthrough

whichanapplicantcanreachitsgoals.Id.at669(notingthat,whileapplicantsmayprefer

toreceivewaterfromonesource,theCorpscouldnotlimititsanalysistowatersupply

fromthatsource).

39. NEPAputsuponagenciesaduty“toexerciseadegreeofskepticismin

dealingwithself‐servingstatements”fromaproject’sprimebeneficiaries.Id.

40. Further,anagency“mustdemonstratethatithasconsideredsignificant

commentsandcriticismsbyexplainingwhyitdisagreeswiththem;itmaynotdismiss


11

themwithoutadequateexplanation.”All.toSavetheMattaponiv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,

606F.Supp.2d121,132(D.D.C.2009).

41. Finally,anagencyactsarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyifitdismissesa

commenter’ssubstantialandcredibleevidence.Ass’nConcernedaboutTomorrowv.Slater,

40F.Supp.2d823,827(N.D.Tex.1998)(citingAvoyellesSportsmen’sLeaguev.Marsh,715

F.2d897,906–07(5thCir.1983)).

CleanWaterAct

42. Section404oftheCWAauthorizestheCorpstoissuepermitstoregulatethe

dischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialintowatersoftheUnitedStates,includingwetlands.

33U.S.C.§1344.

43. UnderSection404(b)(1),theCorpsshallnotpermitadischargethatwould

resultinsignificantdegradationofthewatersoftheUnitedStates,orwherealess

environmentallydamagingpracticablealternativeexists.40C.F.R.§230.10.

44. SeveraloftheCorps’keygoals—goalsthatarerepeatedthroughoutitsown

guidancedocumentsandmemorandumsofagreement—areto“avoidadverseimpacts...

toexistingaquaticresources”andto“achieveagoalofnooverallnetloss”towetlands.See,

e.g.,Corps/EPA404(b)(1)MemorandumofAgreement(1990).

45. IftheEISforaprojectispreparedbyanotheragency,andthatEISis

“inadequatewithrespecttotheCorpspermitaction,”theCorpsshould“preparean

appropriateandadequateNEPAdocumenttoaddresstheCorpsinvolvementwiththe

proposedaction.”33C.F.R.§325App.B§20.


12

46. Initspurposeandneedstatement,theCorps“willinallcases,exercise

independentjudgmentindefiningthepurposeandneedfortheprojectfromboththe

applicant'sandthepublic'sperspective.”33C.F.R.§325App.B§9(b)(4).

47. Further,“[t]heCorpshasadutytoindependentlyevaluatepracticable

alternativestotheproposedproject‘ifsuchalternativeswouldhavelessadverseimpacton

theaquaticecosystem[andno]othersignificantadverseenvironmentalconsequences.’”

SierraClubv.VanAntwerp,709F.Supp.2d1254,1263(S.D.Fla.2009)(quoting40C.F.R.

230.10(a))(secondalterationinoriginal).

48. TheCorpsmustconsiderindetailthosereasonablealternativesthatwould

accomplishtheunderlyingpurposeandneed.33C.F.R.§325App.B§9(b)(5)(a).These

alternativesshouldbeevaluated“toallowacompleteandobjectiveevaluationofthepublic

interestandafullyinformeddecisionregardingthepermitapplication.”SierraClub,709F.

Supp.2dat1268n.28.

49. Wheninformationisprovidedbyanapplicant,theCorps“must‘documentin

therecordtheindependentevaluationoftheinformation[submittedbytheapplicantfor

theEIS]anditsaccuracy,asrequiredby[NEPACEQregulations]40C.F.R.1506.5(a).’”Id.

at1263(quoting33C.F.R.§325App.B(8)(f)(2)).

50. Inevaluatingalternatives,theCorps“mustfocusontheaccomplishmentof

theunderlyingpurposeandneed.”33C.F.R.§325App.B§9(b)(5)(a).WhiletheCorpshas

aresponsibilitytoconsidertheapplicant’sobjectives,“theburdenofprovingthatagiven

alternativedoesnotmeettheapplicant'sobjectiveremainsontheapplicant...andthe


13

applicant’sassessmentmustbecriticallyevaluatedbytheCorps.”GreaterYellowstoneCoal.

v.Flowers,359F.3d1257,1270(10thCir.2004).

AdministrativeProcedureAct

51. TheAPAprovidesthestandardofreviewforfinalagencyaction.See,e.g.,

Olenhousev.CommodityCreditCorp.,42F.3d1560,1572(10thCir.1994).

52. UponreviewingagencydecisionschallengedundertheAPA,acourtmust

“holdunlawfulandsetasideagencyaction,findings,andconclusionsfoundtobe...

arbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,orotherwisenotinaccordancewithlaw.”

5U.S.C.§706.

53. “Whereanagencyhasfailed...toexplainthepathithastaken,”orwhere“it

omittedthecriticalstep—connectingthefactstotheconclusion,”acourt“ha[s]nochoice

buttoremandforareasonedexplanation.”Dicksonv.Sec'yofDef.,68F.3d1396,1405,

1407(D.C.Cir.1995).

FACTUALBACKGROUND

HistoryoftheOriginalWindyGapProjectandtheDevelopmentoftheWindyGapFirmingProject

54. Anaptexampleofthesunkcostbias,theFirmingProjectseeks“tofixa

brokenproject.”FinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(“FEIS”),App.F,F‐424.

55. ReclamationpermittedtheOriginalProject,ownedbytheSubdistrict,in

1981.FEIS,1‐5.TheOriginalProjecthasoperatedsince1985.FEIS,1‐5.

56. TheOriginalProjectwasintendedtosupplywatertousersonboth

Colorado’sFrontRangeandWestSlopebydivertingasmuchas56,000AFofwateroutof


14

theColoradoRivereachyearattheWindyGapReservoirinGrandCounty,Colorado.

FEIS,1‐7.

57. TheOriginalProjectwouldthenuseReclamation’sandNorthernWater’s

Colorado‐BigThompson(“C‐BT”)Projectfacilitiestostoreandconveymostofthatwater

toWindyGapProjectparticipants.FEIS,1‐4to1‐8.

58. TheC‐BTProjectdivertsColoradoRiverwaterandpumpsitfromGranby

ReservoirintoShadowMountainReservoir,whereitistransportedtotheFrontRange

throughGrandLakeandtheAdamsTunnel.FEIS,1‐4to1‐5.

59. Basedonanticipatedannualdiversionsof56,000AFfromtheColorado

River,ReclamationexpectedtheOriginalProjecttobeabletodeliverupto48,000AFto

FrontRangeparticipantseachyear,afteraccountingforevaporationlossesandWestSlope

deliveries.FEIS,1‐7,1‐9.

60. BetweentheOriginalProject’scompletionin1985and2004,however,

annualdeliveriesaveragedlessthan10,000AFperyear.FEIS,1‐9.Thisisonlytwenty

percentoftheprojectedannualdeliveries.FEIS,1‐9.

61. Fornumerousreasons,theOriginalProjecthasbeenunabletodeliverthe

expectedwatersuppliestotheparticipants.FEIS,1‐1.

62. Indryyears,theOriginalProjectoftencannotdeliveritsanticipatedyieldfor

twomainreasons.FEIS,1‐10.

63. First,Reclamationexplainedthat,whenwaterislimited,seniorwaterrights

canpreventjuniorwaterrightsfromdivertingtoensuretheseseniorrightsarefilled.FEIS,


15

1‐10.Asaresult,duringdryyears,WindyGap’srelativelyjuniorwaterrightsoftencannot

bediverted.FEIS,1‐10.

64. Second,ReclamationnotedthataMemorandumofUnderstandingimposes

instreamflowrequirementsthatalsopreventWindyGapdiversions.FEIS,1‐10.This

agreementmandatesthattheoperatorsofWindyGapReservoirreleasewaterotherwise

meantforWindyGapparticipantstomaintainminimuminstreamflowsof90cubicfeetper

second(“cfs”)fromtheWindyGapdiversionpointtothemouthofWilliamsForkRiver.

FEIS,1‐7.

65. TheOriginalProject’sfailingsarenotlimitedtodryyears.FEIS,1‐10.In

manywetyears,theOriginalProjectcannotdeliveritsanticipatedyieldbecauseC‐BT

ProjectfacilitiesareusedatmaximumcapacitybytheC‐BTProjectitselfandare

unavailableforconveyanceandstorageofWindyGapwater.FEIS,1‐10.Bycontract,C‐BT

ProjectwaterhaspriorityoverWindyGapwaterforbothstorageandconveyance.FEIS,1‐

10.

66. WhileReclamationandtheParticipantsanticipatedtheinabilitytodivertin

dryyears,theysomehowfailedtoanticipate“theinabilitytodivertandstoreduringan

extendedsetofwetyears,”despitetheexistenceofthecontractgivingC‐BTProjectwater

priorityandtheknownphysicallimitationsoftheC‐BTfacilities.FEIS,1‐10.

67. Thisfailuretoadequatelyassessfacilityavailabilityandtoplanaccordingly

isthereasonthattheSubdistrictnowwantstospendevenmoremoneytoaccomplishless

thanwhatitthoughttheOriginalProjectwould.SeeFEISExecutiveSummary(“ES”),ES‐5


16

(explainingthattheOriginalProjectwasexpectedtoprovideanannualfirmyieldof48,000

AF,whiletheFirmingProjectwouldprovideanannualfirmyieldof30,000AF).

68. TheOriginalProject’sfailuretodelivertheanticipatedamountofwaterto

theparticipantsisalsoafunctionofthelackofdemandbyparticipantsforWindyGap

water.FEIS,1‐10.Thislackofdemandhasreducedtheamountofwaterdeliveredbythe

OriginalProjectandalsofactoredintothesevenyearswheretheprojectdivertednowater

fromtheColoradoRiver.FEIS,1‐10;seealsoFEIS,3‐11.

69. Inshort,theOriginalProjecthasfailedtodelivertheexpectedquantitiesof

waterbothbecausedemandislackingandbecauseitwassopoorlyplannedthatitcannot

deliverwaterduringwetyears.SeeFEIS,1‐10.

70. RatherthanaccepttheshortcomingsoftheirOriginalProjectandseek

reliablealternativewatersuppliesafterthreedecadesoffailure,FirmingProject

participantswantto“pursuemeasuresthroughajointprojecttofirmWindyGapwater

deliveries.”FEIS,1‐10.

71. Consequently,theSubdistrictproposedtheFirmingProjecttoReclamation.

FEIS,1‐1.

72. TheSubdistricthopesthatthiswill“firm”theOriginalProject’santicipated

yield,increasingitsfirmannualyieldfromzeroAFtoapproximately30,000AF.FEIS,1‐1.

73. TheFirmingProjectinvolvesconstructinganew90,000AFreservoirtostore

WindyGapwaterontheFrontRange,andstoring,orprepositioning,C‐BTwaterinthat

reservoir.FEIS,ES‐7.PrepositioningallowsC‐BTwatertobestoredinthisnewFront


17

RangereservoirwhichmakesroomtostoreandmoveWindyGapwaterintheC‐BT

system.FEIS,ES‐7.

74. FirmingProjectparticipantsincludetheCityandCountyofBroomfield,the

CentralWeldCountyWaterDistrict,theTownofErie,theCityofEvans,theCityofFort

Lupton,theCityofGreeley,theCityofLafayette,theLittleThompsonWaterDistrict,the

CityofLongmont,theCityofLouisville,theCityofLoveland,thePlatteRiverPower

Authority,theTownofSuperior,andtheMiddleParkWaterConservancyDistrict.FEIS,1‐

2to1‐3.

Reclamation’sDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement

Reclamation’sConsiderationofPurposeandNeed

75. OnAugust29,2008,ReclamationreleaseditsDraftEIS(“DEIS”)forthe

WindyGapFirmingProject.FEIS,1‐46.

76. RatherthanconductanindependentanalysisinpreparingtheDEIS,

Reclamationreliedheavilyonassertions,studies,andreportsprovidedbytheSubdistrict.

See,e.g.,DEIS,2‐2to2‐3.

77. Mostimportantly,ReclamationacceptedtheSubdistrict’snarrow

characterizationoftheproject’spurpose—tofirmWindyGapwater—asopposedtothe

moreappropriatepurpose—tomeettheactualneedforwater.See,e.g.,WindyGap

FirmingProjectPublicScopingReport,1.

78. ReclamationalsoacceptedtheSubdistrict’sproposeddemandforwater

supply,despiteahistoryoflowdemandrenderingdeliveriesduringtheOriginalProject’s


18

firsttwentyyearsatonlyabout20percentoftheoriginallyanticipatedamount.DEIS,1‐9

to1‐10.

79. InestablishingdemandfortheFirmingProject,Reclamationestimated,inits

2005PurposeandNeedReport,thatparticipantswouldhaveashortageof64,000AFof

firmwatersuppliesby2030,andashortageofover110,000AFby2050.DEIS,1‐37.

80. Basedonthisdata,ReclamationprojectedthatnineofthefourteenFirming

Projectparticipantswouldfaceshortagesoffirmwatersuppliesby2006.DEIS,1‐38,Table

1‐5.

81. Bythetime2006passed,despitetheOriginalProjectfailingtoprovideany

firmwateryield,theparticipantssufferednosuchcrisis.Additionally,despitebeing

publishedin2008,theDEISdidnotincludetheseparticipants’actualfirmwatershortages

orsurplusesfortheseyears.SeeDEIS,1‐37to1‐38.

82. Regardlessofthislackofdemonstrateddemand,Reclamationadopteda

purposeandneedforadditionalstoragethatwoulddeliverafirmannualyieldof30,000AF

ofWindyGapwater.DEIS,1‐4,1‐39to1‐40.

Reclamation’sScreeningofAlternatives

83. Reclamation(andtheCorps)alsoreviewedandreliedontheSubdistrict’s

2003AlternativePlanFormulationReport(“AlternativesReport”)whenReclamation

begantheNEPAEISprocess,stating:“Bothagenciesconcurredthatthe[Alternatives

Report]providedanexcellentcompilationofdataandalternativesanalysis.However,

furtherrefinementofthealternativescreeningandselectionprocesswasneededto

addresstherequirementsofthe[CleanWaterAct’s]404(b)(1)Guidelines.”DEIS,2‐3.


19

84. ReclamationemployedtheSubdistrict’snarrowpurposeandneedof“fixing”

abrokenprojectasoneofthefirstscreeningcategoriestoeliminatepotentialalternatives

totheFirmingProjectparticipants’projectedwatershortages.DEIS,2‐3.

85. Thus,whiletheSubdistrict’sAlternativesReport“evaluated”a“totalof171

differentprojectelements,”Reclamationscreenedoutthevastmajorityimmediately

becausetheydidnotfitthenarrowlydefinedpurposeandneed.SeeDEIS,2‐2to2‐6.

86. Forexample,Reclamationeliminated“NonstructuralAlternatives.”DEIS,2‐

5.Reclamation’sdiscussionforeliminatingthosewasbrief:“Allnonstructuralmeasures,

exceptprepositioning,wereeliminated...[becauseof]conflictswithC‐BToperations,

adverseimpactsonwaterdeliveriestoC‐BTunitholders,andtheinabilitytofirmWindy

Gapwater.”DEIS,2‐5.

87. Reclamationalsoeliminated“OtherAlternatives”(suchasrearrangingwater

rightdeliveries)becausetheydidnotmeettheproject’spurposeandneed,wouldnotmeet

participant’sgoalsforWindyGapwater,orwouldnotbepermittedbytheC‐BTProject.

DEIS,2‐6.

88. Amongthese“OtherAlternatives,”Reclamationeliminatedwater

conservationbecause“conservationalonedoesnotmeetalloftheprojectedwatersupply

requirementsoreliminatetheneedforfirmingexistingWindyGapProjectwatersupplies.”

DEIS,2‐6.

89. Reclamationdidnotindependentlyevaluatetheextenttowhich

improvementsinwaterconservationcouldaddressFirmingProjectparticipants’water

supplyneeds.DEIS,2‐6.


20

90. Afterasecondroundofscreeningfocusedonreducingimpactstowetlands,

Reclamationscreenedoutanyremainingalternativesthatdidnotmeetitsnarrowly

definedpurposeandneed.DEIS,2‐6to2‐7.

91. Bytheendofthisprocess,Reclamationexcludedanyalternativethatwould

notresultinconstructionofnewstorageandnewdiversionsfromtheColoradoRiver.See

DEIS,2‐14.

Reclamation’sConsiderationofRemainingAlternatives

92. FouractionalternativesremainedforNEPAevaluationafterthescreening

process;allfourinvolveddiversionsfromtheColoradoRivertofillnewFrontRange

reservoirs.DEIS,2‐14.

93. ThreeofthesealternativesinvolvedbuildingtheChimneyHollowReservoir

ontheFrontRange,eitherwitha70,000AFor90,000AFcapacity.DEIS,2‐14.

94. Thefourthalternativeinvolvedbuildingthe60,000AFcapacityDryCreek

ReservoirontheFrontRange.DEIS,2‐14.

95. BecauseReclamationassumedthat90,000AFofnewstoragewasneeded,

thealternativeswithFrontRangereservoirsunder90,000AFalsoinvolvedconstructing

newWestSlopestoragetoreachthisstorageamount;thesealternativesinvolvedbuilding

eithertheJasperEastReservoirortheRockwell/MuellerCreekReservoir.DEIS,2‐3,2‐11.

96. Ofthesealternatives,theSubdistricthadproposedconstructingthe“90,000

AFChimneyHollowReservoirusingprepositioningtoimproveyield.”DEIS,2‐14.

Reclamationalsoidentifiedthe90,000AFChimneyHollowReservoirasitspreferred

alternative.DEIS,2‐45.


21

97. Reclamationalsoconsideredanoactionalternative.DEIS,2‐14.Underthis

alternative,ReclamationassumedthatFirmingProjectparticipantswouldbothseekother

storageoptionsandmaximizeWindyGapwaterdeliverieswhenavailable.DEIS,2‐15.

98. Amongthesestorageoptions,ReclamationassumedthattheCityof

LongmontwouldenlargeitsRalphPriceReservoirby13,000AF,andincludedananalysis

oftheimpactsofenlargingthatreservoiraspartofitsnoactionalternative.DEIS,2‐15.

99. Reclamationdidnotincludeanalysesofotherparticipant’sstorageoptions

becausetheparticipantshadnotidentifiedanyoptions.DEIS,2‐15,2‐17.

100. TheseconsiderationsincreasedReclamation’smodeledaverageyear

diversionsfrom36,532AFunderexistingconditionsto43,573AFunderthenoaction

alternative.DEIS,3‐19,Table3‐2.

PublicCommentsandReclamation’sResponsesontheDraftEIS

101. ReclamationacceptedpubliccommentontheDEISfromAugust29,2008

throughDecember29,2008.FEISApp.F,F‐3.

102. WesternResourceAdvocates(“WRA”)commentedthatReclamationover‐

inflatedpopulationprojections,Reclamation’spredictedpercapitawaterusewas

arbitrary,andColoradocitieshaveexperienceddramaticandsustainedreductioninper

capitawaterusesince2002.FEISApp.F,Letter#1138,F‐549toF‐552.

103. WRArecalculatedthedemandprojectionsforFirmingProjectparticipants

basedontheColoradoWaterConservationBoard’s(“CWCB”)anticipatedtwenty‐five

percentwaterusereductionforstate‐widewaterplanning.FEISApp.F,Letter#1138,F‐

556.WRA’scalculationsofFirmingProjectparticipants’percapitawaterusefallsfrom


22

194gallonspercapitaperday(“GPCD”)(average1998‐2003)to147GPCDby2033.FEIS

App.F,F‐556.WRAargued,basedontheseconservationcalculations,thatexistingfirm

supplieswillmeetfuturewaterdemandsthrough2030.FEISApp.F,Letter#1138,F‐557.

104. Reclamationreplied,withoutadequateexplanation,thatWRA’smethodwas

inappropriateandFirmingProjectparticipantswouldmaintainconservationplansin

accordancewiththeWaterConservationActof2004.FEISApp.F,F‐556,F‐563.

105. Amongmanypointsraisedinitscomments,theEPAnotedotherreasonable

alternativesthatReclamationshouldhaveconsidered,suchasacquiringmoreseniorwater

rights,usingshort‐termagriculturalleasesforimmediatetemporarywatersupplies,and

conjunctiveuseofsurfaceandgroundwater.FEISApp.F,Letter#1141,F‐238toF‐239.

106. Reclamationrespondedthatwhileitunderstandsthat“conservationisakey

component,”thesesuggestedalternatives“wouldnotmeettheprojectpurposeandneed.”

FEISApp.F,F‐238.

107. Additionally,ReclamationreceivedmanycommentsduringitsDEIS

commentperiod—fromcooperatingagenciesandgovernments,othergovernments,

organizations,andindividuals—statingthatitspurposeandneedwastoonarrow.See,e.g.,

FEISApp.F,GrandCountyLetter#1075,F‐19,F‐40;EPALetter#1141,F‐236;Summit

CountyLetter#1120,F‐334;TownofFraserLetter#1069,F‐343;EffectedBusinesses

Letter#1110,F‐424;WRALetter#1138,F‐545;IndividualCommentsbyTopic,F‐615.

108. Reclamationcontinuallyrespondedtothesecommentsbynotingthatthe

purposeandneedwas“tofixabrokenproject,nottosearchforothersourcesofwater.”

See,e.g.,FEISApp.F,F‐19,F‐236,F‐336toF‐337,F‐343,F‐424,F‐545.


23

109. Further,commentspointedoutthatReclamationoverestimatedtheexisting

WindyGapdiversions,whichgrosslyunderstatestheanticipatedchanges.FEISApp.F,

GrandCountyLetter#1075,F‐8toF‐10;FEISApp.F,TroutUnlimitedLetter#1126,F‐490.

ThesecommentsnotedthataveragehistoricalWindyGapdiversionswere11,080AF,

muchlowerthanthe36,532AFusedbyReclamation.FEISApp.F,GrandCountyLetter

#1075,F‐8.

110. Initsresponse,Reclamationnotedthatfrom2001to2008,WindyGap

diversionsaveraged27,450AFperyear.FEISApp.F,F‐8.AccordingtoReclamation,the

modelednumberitused—36,532AF—is“closer”totherecentaverageof27,450AF.FEIS

App.F,F‐8.

111. Reclamationdidnotexplainwhythemodeleddiversionsweremore

appropriatethanthemuchloweractualhistoricaldiversions,howitcalculatedthe

modeleddiversions,orwhythemodeleddiversionsdifferedsogreatlyfromtheactual

historicalaverage.SeeFEISApp.F,F‐8,F‐490toF‐491.

112. Commentersrepeatedlypointedoutthatthedirectandcumulativeimpacts

analysisshouldhaveincludedtheDenverWaterMoffatCollectionSystemProject(“Moffat

Project”).See,e.g.,FEISApp.F,BarLazyJGuestRanchLetter#1052,F‐398;ChimneyRock

RanchLetter#1059,F‐408;GreaterGrandLakeShorelineAssociationLetter#58,F‐448;

TroutUnlimitedLetter#1126,F‐495.

113. TheMoffatProject,ascurrentlyproposed,willexpandtheexistingMoffat

CollectionSystemandisanticipatedtoresultinsignificantadditionaldiversionsfromthe


24

FraserRiverupstreamoftheWindyGapdiversionsite.FEIS,2‐44.TheMoffatProjectwill

directlyaffecttheavailabilityofwaterfortheFirmingProject.FEIS,2‐44.

114. ReclamationprovidedconclusoryresponsesthattheFEISfullyconsidered

thecumulativeimpactsoftheMoffatProject.See,e.g.,FEISApp.F,F‐408.

115. VariousgroupsalsoprovidedfurtherexamplesofhowReclamation’s

cumulativeimpactsanalysiswasinsufficient.See,e.g.,FEISApp.F,F‐239toF‐242,F‐497,

F‐501toF‐502.

116. CommentersquestionedReclamation’sanalysisofwaterqualityinGrand

Lake,includingquestioningReclamation’smethodologyandstatementsthatsuggesteda

higher“flushingrate”wouldimprovewaterquality.SeeFEISApp.F,GreaterGrandLake

ShoreAssociationLetter#58,F‐447.

117. Thesecommentsstatedthat“everystudywehaveeverseenshowsexactly

theopposite—increasedflowisdirectlyrelatedtolowerwaterquality.”FEISApp.F,

GreaterGrandLakeShoreAssociationLetter#58,F‐447.

118. Reclamationrespondedbystatingthat,accordingtoonestudy,higher

flushingratesimprovedwaterquality.FEISApp.F,F‐447.

119. OnecommentfaultedReclamationfornotconsideringhowsalinityand

seleniumwouldaffectColoradoRiverwaterquality.FEISApp.F,F‐626.

120. ReclamationnotedthatareductioninColoradoRiverflowswouldreducethe

volumeofwateravailabletodilutesalinityandselenium,butsimplyrespondedthatits

modelssuggestthattherewouldbeenoughwaterintherivertodiluteanypollution.FEIS

App.F,F‐626.


25

121. CommentspointedoutthatReclamationdidnotconsiderwhatimpacts

wouldoccurasaresultofincreaseddroughtconditionsandpointedtoReclamation’s

failuretoconsider:impactstotheColoradoRiver’sover‐the‐bank,habitatproducingflows;

climatechange;andwaterqualityeffectsonGrandLake.FEISApp.F,TroutUnlimited

Letter#1126,F‐493toF‐496.

122. Additionally,thesecommentsnotedthatthevarianceindailystreamflowsis

extremelyimportantforriversandtheuseofdailydatadisaggregatedfromanaveragewill

over‐estimateflows.FEISApp.F,TroutUnlimitedLetter#1126,F‐489.Consequently,the

commenterquestionedReclamation’sdisaggregationmethodandsuggestedthat

Reclamationshoulduseactualdailydata.FEISApp.F,F‐489.

123. Initsresponse,Reclamationstatedthatdisaggregationwasappropriate.

FEISApp.F,F‐489.Itdidnotnoteanyshortcomingsofdisaggregation,nordiditexplain

whyitdidnotusedailydata.FEISApp.F,F‐489.

124. CommentersnotedthatReclamationusedastudyfrom1981tocalculateits

flushingflow,whileamorerecent2004studywouldrecommendmuchhigherflows.FEIS

App.F,WRALetter#1138,F‐578toF‐580.

125. Reclamationdidnotexplainitschoiceofthe1981study’smethodologyor

whyitdidnotusethe2004study’smethodology.FEISApp.F,F‐578toF‐580.

Reclamation’sFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement

126. ReclamationcompleteditsFEISinDecember,2011.BureauofReclamation–

RecordofDecision(“BOR‐ROD”),5.


26

127. TheFEISdidnotcontainanysignificantchangeswithregardtothepurpose

andneed,thepreferredalternative,ortheotheractionalternatives.FEIS,ES‐2toES‐4.

128. Despitebeingpreparedin2011,theFEISretained2005projectionsofwater

shortagesinsteadofprovidingtheactualdatatodetermineprojectparticipantwater

supplydemand.CompareDEIS,1‐38withFEIS,1‐42;CompareDEIS,1‐18withFEIS,1‐20.

129. Reclamationdidexpanditsconsiderationofclimatechangefromafew

paragraphsintheDEIStoroughlythreepagesintheFEIS.CompareDEIS,2‐44withFEIS,

2‐49to2‐51&FEIS,3‐62.

130. However,becauseof“variedpredictionsinthemagnitudeanddirectionof

climatechanges,”Reclamation’shydrologicmodelfortheFirmingProjectintheFEISdid

notincludeclimatechange.FEIS,3‐62.

131. Instead,Reclamationprovidedaqualitativeanalysisofthepotentialeffectsof

climatechange,relyingentirelyonareportbytheCWCB.FEIS,2‐51.

132. Reclamationdidnotsubstantiallychangeitsdiscussionoftheeffectsthatthe

FirmingProjectwouldhaveonGrandLake.Itaddedchartswithoutsignificantlyaltering

itsnarrativeoritsdatathatindicatehowtheFirmingProjectwouldimpactwaterqualityin

thenaturallake.CompareDEIS,3‐107to3‐108withFEIS,3‐170to3‐174.

133. WhileReclamationidentifiednewreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions

sincetheDEIS,itdeemedmostoftheseirrelevantortoominimaltoadjustitsdata.See

FEIS,2‐45to2‐49.SimilartoitsGrandLakeanalysis,itsanalysisofotherriversandlakes

remainedsubstantivelythesame.CompareDEIS,3‐86to3‐129withFEIS,3‐127to3‐200.


27

CommentsontheFinalEIS

134. ReclamationreceivednumerouscommentsonitsFinalEIS.BOR‐ROD,14.

135. InitsRecordofDecision,Reclamationonlyprovidedgeneralizedsummaries

ofissuesraisedbycommenters.SeeBOR‐ROD,14–17.Reclamationleftoutthespecifics

andsourcesofdataprovidedbycommenters,leavingonlyitsownresponsesasdata

sources.SeeBOR‐ROD,14–17.

136. Thesecommentsaddressedstillexistingissueswithwaterqualityanalysis,

streamflowanalysis,anduseofolderdata.BOR‐ROD,14–17.

137. InresponsetoconcernsaboutfailingsintheFEIS’sanalysisofGrandLake

waterquality,ReclamationonlysaidthattheFEISaddressedtheissue.BOR‐ROD,14.

138. Commentsalsoreflectedconcernsabouthowalterationsinflushingflows

willaffectchannelmaintenanceandsuggestedthatReclamationshouldusenewdatafor

thisanalysis.BOR‐ROD,14–15.

139. Reclamationreceivedadditionalcommentsregardingtheuseofflawedand

outdateddatatoanalyzeenvironmentalimpacts.BOR‐ROD,14–16.

140. CommentersalsoquestionedReclamation’sdismissalofa2011report’s

conclusionsregardingtheexistingphysicalconditionoftheColoradoRiverbelowWindy

GapReservoir.BOR‐ROD,16.

BureauofReclamation’sRecordofDecision

141. OnDecember19,2014,ReclamationreleaseditsRecordofDecisionforthe

FirmingProject.BOR‐ROD,1.ReclamationdeterminedthattheFEIScompliedwithNEPA

anddecidedtoimplementthePreferredAlternative.BOR‐ROD,18.


28

142. Specifically,Reclamation’sRecordofDecisionencompassestwoactions:(1)

approvalofanewcontractbetweenReclamation,theSubdistrict,andNorthernWater

coveringwaterstorageandexchangethatwouldallowuseofunusedcapacityintheC‐BT

Projectasavailable;and(2)approvalofaspecialusepermitauthorizingconnectionofthe

Subdistrict’sproposedChimneyHollowReservoirtoReclamation’sC‐BTProjectfacilities.

BOR‐ROD,18.

143. Reclamationbaseditsdecision,amongotherconsiderations,onitsfinding

thattheSubdistrict’sPreferredAlternativemetthestatedpurposeandneed.BOR‐ROD,19.

PublicCommentandCorps’ResponsesontheSection404PermitApplication

144. TheCorpsservedasacooperatingagencyforboththeDEISandFEISforthe

FirmingProject.ACE‐ROD,1.

145. OnAugust13,2008,theSubdistrictsubmittedaCWASection404permit

applicationtotheCorpsbecauseitspreferredalternativewouldresultinthedischargeof

fillmaterialintowatersoftheUnitedStates.ACE‐ROD,2.

146. ConcurrentwiththereleaseoftheDEIS,theCorpsissuedpublicnoticefor

theCWASection404permit.ACE‐ROD,2.TheCorpsacceptedcommentsontheFirming

ProjectthroughitsissuanceoftheSection404RecordofDecision.ACE‐ROD,7.

147. Numerouscommenterssuggestedthat,pursuanttoCWA404(b)(1)

guidelines,theCorpsmustsupplementtheFEISbecauseofsignificantnewcircumstances

andinformation.See,e.g.,ACE‐RODApp.A,4–5;ACE‐RODApp.A,43.


29

148. Forexample,multiplecommenterspointedoutthattheCorpsmustcollect

andanalyzeadditionaldataandsupplementtheFEISbecausetheFEISdoesnotincludeup‐

to‐datedataandaccurateanalysis.ACE‐RODApp.A24;ACE‐RODApp.A,45.

149. Additionally,theEPAsuggestedthattheCorpsshouldsupplementtheFEIS’s

climatechangeanalysis,surfacehydrologyanalysis,andstreammorphologyanalysis.ACE‐

RODApp.A,17,34–35.

150. CommentersalsopointedoutthattheFirmingProjectwoulddraintens‐of‐

thousandsofacre‐feetfromthetopoftheColoradoRivereachyear,pushingtheriverover

thebrinkofwhatitcansustain.ACE‐RODApp.A,39.TheCorpssimplydeniesthisfact.

ACE‐RODApp.A,39.

151. TheCorpsdidnotdisputecommenters’argumentsthattheColoradoRiver

systemisalreadyseverelydepletedduetoextendeddroughtintheColoradoRiverBasin.

ACE‐RODApp.A,38.

152. TheCorpsreceivedpubliccommentspointingoutthatthepurposeandneed

describedintheFEISwasflawedandtoonarrowtosatisfyNEPAandtheCWA.ACE‐ROD

App.A,40.

153. Inresponse,theCorpsstated“thattheupdatedPurposeandNeedstatement

inChapter1oftheFEISisappropriateforthisprojectandiscompliantwithNEPA

regulations.”ACE‐RODApp.A,40.

154. Othercommentersprovidedevidencethattheassumptionsusedby

ReclamationandtheCorpsintheFEISmisrepresentthebaselineflowsfortheColorado


30

River,whichunderestimatestheimpactsoftheFirmingProjectbyoverfiftypercent.ACE‐

RODApp.A,45.

155. Inresponsetothesecomments,theCorpssimplyadoptsReclamation’s

reasoningthatReclamation’smodel,developedwitholderdatafrom1950–1985,ismore

accurateinpredictingbaselineflowsthanmorerecent,actualdatafrom1985–2010that

commentersprovided.ACE‐RODApp.A,45–53.

156. CommenterspresentedinformationtotheCorpsshowingthattheFEISfailed

becauseitdidnotconsiderthepotentialforreducedavailabilityofthewaterrights

connectedtotheprojectasaresultofaColoradoRiverCompactCall(“CompactCall”).

ACE‐RODApp.A,123.Commentersnotedthataproperanalysisofclimatechangewould

haveallowedtheagenciestoconsidertheserisks.ACE‐RODApp.A,127.

157. TheCorps’responsedidnotmentionthepotentialforaCompactCalland

claimedthatthedataissimplynotavailabletoincludeaquantitativeanalysisofclimate

change.ACE‐RODApp.A,123–24.

158. SavetheColoradosubmittedseveralacademicpapersandreportstothe

Corps.ACE‐RODApp.A,123–27.Amongthemwasareportpublishedin2016—several

monthspriortotheCorps’RecordofDecision—entitled“ClimateChangeandtheColorado

River:WhatWeAlreadyKnow.”ACE‐RODApp.A,124.Thisreportcontainedasubstantial

amountofdataregardingclimatechangeandtheColoradoRiver.ACE‐RODApp.A,124.

159. TheEPAalsosuggestedamodelthatwouldhaveallowedaquantitative

analysisoftheeffectsofclimatechange.ACE‐RODApp.A,34–35.TheEPArecommended

thattheCorpscompletethisevaluation.ACE‐RODApp.A,34–35.


31

160. InresponsetoSavetheColorado’sacademicpapersandreports,theCorps

statedthatthemethodsanddataofclimatesciencearetoouncertaintobevaluable.ACE‐

RODApp.A,123–24.InresponsetotheEPA,theCorpsagainadoptedReclamation’s

responsethataquantitativeassessmentofclimatechangeistoouncertain.ACE‐RODApp.

A,34–35.

161. CommenterspointedoutthattheCorpscannotrelyontheflawedanalysisin

Reclamation’sFEISfor,amongotherthings,identifyingafullrangeofreasonable

alternatives,consideringtheFirmingProject’sdirect,indirect,andcumulativeimpacts,and

consideringwhetheradverseeffectscanbemitigated.ACE‐RODApp.A,39–41.

162. Again,manycommentersreiteratedtheirconcernsthathadnotbeen

adequatelyaddressedfollowingtheircommentsontheDEISandFEIS.See,e.g.,ACE‐ROD

App.A,45,91.Thesecommentsnotedtheinsufficientanalysisofflushingflowsandthe

lackofaclimatechangeanalysis.See,e.g.,ACE‐RODApp.A,46,95,97,107–10.

163. Inresponsetoallthesecomments,theCorpsprimarilyreferredtotheFEIS

itselforreliesonReclamation’sresponsestocomments.See,e.g.,ACE‐RODApp.A,39–41.

TheCorps’RecordofDecisionontheSection404Permit

164. TheCorpsissueditsRecordofDecisiononMay16,2017.ACE‐ROD,Cover

Page.

165. TheCorpsdeterminedthatthebasicprojectpurposewassimplywater

supply.ACE‐ROD,3.TheCorpsdefinedbasicprojectpurposeas“thefundamental,

essential,orirreduciblepurposeoftheproposedproject.”ACE‐ROD,3.


32

166. BecausetheCorpsdeterminedthatwatersupplywasthebasicproject

purpose,andbecausewatersupplydoes“notfundamentallyrequireaccessorproximityto,

orsitingwithin,aspecialaquaticsite,”theCorpsconcludedthattheSubdistrict’sPreferred

Alternativewasnotwaterdependent.ACE‐ROD,3.

167. TheCorpsnotedthatthe404(b)(1)Guidelinesstipulatethat,whenaproject

isnotwaterdependent,“practicablealternativesare(1)presumedtoexistand(2)

presumedtobelessenvironmentallydamagingthantheApplicant’sPreferredAlternative,

unlessclearlydemonstratedotherwise.”ACE‐ROD,3.

168. Despitedeterminingthatwatersupplywasthebasicprojectpurpose,the

CorpsdecidedthatthebasicprojectneedwastofirmwaterdeliveriesfromtheOriginal

Project—thatis,tofixthebrokenproject.ACE‐ROD,4.

169. TheentiretyoftheCorps’RODanalysisonthispointstated:“Uponreview

theCorpsagreeswiththeApplicant’sstatedprojectneed”andthenprovidedareferenceto

Reclamation’sdeficientFEIS.ACE‐ROD,4.

170. HavingacceptedReclamation’sneed,theCorpsalsoacceptedReclamation’s

alternatives,whichexcludedanyalternativethatwouldnotresultinincreasedand

additionaldiversionsfromtheColoradoRiver.ACE‐ROD,4.

171. AlthoughtheCorpsidentifiedthatthebasicprojectpurposewastoincrease

participants’watersupplies,theCorpsneverexplainedwhythatpurposecouldonlybe

satisfiedthroughattemptingtofixthefailedOriginalProject.

172. Asidefromthedirecteffectsofconstructinga90,000AFreservoirat

ChimneyHollow,theCorpsrecognizedthattheresultingindirecteffectswouldinclude


33

“floodingjurisdictionalwetlandsandotherWatersoftheU.S.duetotheimpoundmentof

water,aswellas,downstreamimpactstoChimneyHollowcreekfromregimentingtheflow

fromthereservoir,”andimpactstotheColoradoRiversystemitself.ACE‐ROD,3.

173. TheCorps’RODdoesnotexplainhowtheapplicant’spreferredalternativeis

lessenvironmentallydamagingthanthenoactionalternativeoranyotheraction

alternativeconsideredasapartoftheNEPAprocess.See,e.g.,ACE‐ROD,7.

174. TheCorps’RODonlycontainstheconclusorystatement:“Alternative2has

beenidentifiedastheLEDPA[LeastEnvironmentallyDamagingPreferredAlternative].”

ACE‐ROD,7.

FIRSTCLAIMFORRELIEFViolationoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(42U.S.C.§4332)Reclamation’sSelectionofanImpermissiblyNarrowPurposeandNeed

175. Eachandeveryallegationcontainedintheprecedingparagraphsofthis

petitionisincorporatedbyreferencesasiffullysetforthherein.

176. Anagencythatfailstoconductanindependentanalysisandinsteadadopts

anapplicant’sproposedpurposethatprecludesreasonablealternativestotheproject

violatesNEPA.SeeDavisv.Mineta,302F.3d1104,1119–20(10thCir.2002).

177. Inits2003AlternativesReport,theSubdistrictstatedthepurposeofthe

firmingprojectwasto“identifyandevaluatereasonablealternativescapableoffirmingthe

WindyGapProjectwatersupply....”

178. InitsRecordofDecision,Reclamationstatedthat“[t]hepurposeoftheWGFP

istodeliverafirmannualyieldofabout30,000AFofwaterfromtheexistingWindyGap

Project....”


34

179. Whencommenterssuggestedthatwatersupplyistheunderlyingpurpose

andneed,Reclamationrespondedthatthepurposeandneedisto“fixabrokenproject,not

tosearchforothersourcesofwater.”

180. Reclamation’sidentificationofanimpermissiblynarrowpurposeandneed

thatprecludedreasonablealternativesviolatesNEPAandwasarbitrary,capricious,andan

abuseofdiscretionunder5U.S.C.§706.

SECONDCLAIMFORRELIEFViolationoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(42U.S.C.§4332)

Reclamation’sFailuretoIndependentlyDeterminetheExistenceofApplicant’sProposedNeed



182. UnderNEPA,agencieshaveaduty“toexerciseadegreeofskepticismin

dealingwithself‐servingstatements”fromaproject’sprimebeneficiaries.Simmonsv.U.S.

ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,120F.3d664,669(7thCir.1997).Theagencycommitserrorifit

acceptsaproject’spurposeorneedasgivenbytheprimebeneficiaries.Seeid.at667.

183. ReclamationdidnotindependentlyconsideriftheSubdistrict’sunderlying

needfor30,000AFofwateractuallyexists,despitecommentersquestioningtheneed.

Instead,Reclamationrelieduponthedatasuppliedbytheproject’sprimebeneficiary,the

Subdistrict.

184. Specifically,multiplecommenterssubmitteddata,basedonwater

conservationanalysisanddemandprojections,thatsuggestedalowerwaterdemand

exists.


35

185. Reclamationsimplyrespondedthatthesuggesteddatawasfaultyanddidnot

explainwhytheSubdistrict’sdatathatitreliedonwasbetter.

186. Reclamation’sfailuretoindependentlyverifytheexistenceoftheneedfor

theproject,especiallyafterreceivingcommentssuggestingthattheneedmightnotexist,

violatesNEPAandwasarbitrary,capricious,andanabuseofdiscretionunder5U.S.C.§

706.

THIRDCLAIMFORRELIEFViolationoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(42U.S.C.§4332)

Reclamation’sImproperExclusionofReasonableAlternatives



188. NEPArequiresthatagencies“rigorouslyexploreandobjectivelyevaluate”all

reasonablealternativesand“study,develop,anddescribeappropriatealternativesto

recommendedcoursesofaction.”See42U.S.C.§4332(2)(C)&(E);40C.F.R.§1502.14.

Additionally,theagencymustbeobjectiveinfindingareasonedchoiceofalternativesand

mustconsideralternativesthat,whenintegrated,meetthepurpose.UtahnsforBetter

Transp.v.U.S.Dep’tofTransp.,305F.3d1152,1168,1170(10thCir.2002).

189. Reclamationrejectednonstructuralalternativesthatwouldhavemetthe

underlyingwatersupplypurpose,suchaspurchase/leasebackarrangements,interruptible

supplycontracts,waterexchanges,waterconservation,purchasingmoreseniorwater

rights,usingshorttermagriculturalleasesorothertemporarytransfermethods,and

conjunctivelyusingsurfaceandgroundwater,becauseofapurposeandneedthatwere

framedtoonarrowly.


36

190. Further,Reclamationfailedtoconsideranyintegrationofthesealternate

watersupplyoptionsthatcouldhavemettheunderlyingpurpose.Afterthescreening

process,alloftheremainingalternativesinvolveddiversionsfromtheColoradoRivertofill

newreservoirsontheFrontRange.

191. Reclamation’sfailureto“rigorouslyexploreandobjectivelyevaluate”

reasonablealternativesotherthanreservoirsviolatesNEPAandwasarbitrary,capricious,

andanabuseofdiscretionunder5U.S.C.§706.

FOURTHCLAIMFORRELIEFViolationoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(42U.S.C.§4332)

Reclamation’sFailuretoDisclosetheShortcomingsofItsDataandMethodswhenDeterminingtheProject’sImpacts



193. Courtswillnotdefertoanagency’schoiceofmethodologyordatawhenthe

agencydoesnotadequatelyexplainitsreliabilityorfailstodiscloseitsshortcomings.

HillsdaleEnvtl.LossPrevention,Inc.v.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,702F.3d1156,1178(10th

Cir.2012);LandsCouncilv.Powell,395F.3d1019,1032(9thCir.2005).

194. CommentersidentifiedshortcomingsinReclamation’smethodologyand

data,includingitsoverestimationofexistingdiversions,itswaterqualityanalysisinthe

ThreeLakesSystem,itsuseofdisaggregationandmodelingtoestimatedailystreamflows,

anditsoutdatedmethodsfordeterminingnecessaryflushingflows.


37

195. Despitethesecomments,Reclamationdidnotnoteanyshortcomingsorlack

ofreliabilityinitsmethodologies.Instead,Reclamationprovidedconclusoryresponses

thatitsdataandmethodsprovidedanaccuratebasisforestimatingimpacts.

196. Reclamation’sfailuretoproperlydisclosetheshortcomingsofitsdataand

methods,aswellasReclamation’sconclusoryresponsesandlackoftransparency,violates

NEPAandwasarbitrary,capricious,andanabuseofdiscretionunder5U.S.C.§706.

FIFTHCLAIMFORRELIEFViolationoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(42U.S.C.§4332)

Reclamation’sFailuretoFullyAnalyzetheIdentifiedEnvironmentalImpacts



198. AnagencymustconsiderallreasonablyforeseeableimpactsinanEIS.

UtahnsforBetterTransp.,305F.3dat1175.Indoingso,theagencymustconsider“the

relevantdataandarticulatearationalconnectionbetweenthefactsfoundandthedecision

made.”NewMexicoexrel.Richardsonv.BureauofLandMgmt.,565F.3d683,713(10thCir.

2009).

199. Anagencyactsarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyifitdismissesacommenter’s

substantialandcredibleevidence.Ass’nConcernedaboutTomorrowv.Slater,40F.Supp.2d

823,827(N.D.Tex.1998).

200. Further,anagency“mustdemonstratethatithasconsideredsignificant

commentsandcriticismsbyexplainingwhyitdisagreeswiththem;itmaynotdismiss

themwithoutadequateexplanation.”All.toSavetheMattaponiv.U.S.ArmyCorpsofEng’rs,

606F.Supp.2d121,132(D.D.C.2009).


38

201. Commentersprovidedsubstantialandcredibleevidencethatadditional

diversionsfromtheColoradoRiver,combinedwithanincreasinglyaridclimateandthe

impendingeffectsofclimatechange,couldhavesignificantimpactsontheColoradoRiver’s

morphology,habitat,andotheraquaticresourcesdownstreamofWindyGapReservoir.

202. Despitethisevidence,Reclamationdidnotconsiderthesereasonably

foreseeableimpactsinitsEIS.

203. Reclamationfailedtofullyanalyzetheeffectsthatclimatechangemayhave

onwateravailabilityfortheFirmingProject.Seniorwaterrightsholderscan,when

necessary,preventdiversionofphysicallyavailableflowstoensuretheirrightsarefulfilled,

and,astheColoradoRiverBasinbecomesincreasinglydry,theyaremorelikelytodoso.

204. Additionally,otherColoradoRiverBasinstates,facingthechallengesofa

morearidclimate,mayclaimwaterthroughaCompactCall—waterthattheFirming

Projectneedstoachieveitsfirmyieldgoals.

205. AlthoughReclamationconsideredclimatechangeinalimitedfashion,

Reclamationdidnotincludeitseffectsquantitatively,didnotutilizecurrentscientific

findingsaboutclimatechange,anddidnotprovidearationalexplanationofhowclimate

changeinfluenceditsdecisionmaking.

206. Further,ReclamationinadequatelyanalyzedtheFirmingProject’seffects—

includingwaterqualityandclarity—onGrandLakeandtheThreeLakesSystembecause

Reclamationclaimeditlackedreliabledata,despitewhatcommentersprovided.


39

207. Reclamation’sfailuretofullyanalyzeallreasonablyforeseeableimpactsthat

wereidentifiedviolatesNEPAandwasarbitrary,capricious,andanabuseofdiscretion

under5U.S.C.§706.

SIXTHCLAIMFORRELIEFViolationoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(42U.S.C.§4332)

Reclamation’sFailuretoAdequatelyAnalyzeCumulativeandIndirectImpacts



209. NEPArequiresagenciestoanalyzetheindirectandcumulativeimpactsofa

proposedactionwithpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions.Wyomingv.

U.S.Dep’tofAgric.,661F.3d1209,1251(10thCir.2011).

210. Reclamationfailedtofullyanalyzetheenvironmentalimpactsthatthe

FirmingProjectandtheMoffatProjectwillcumulativelyhaveontheColoradoRiver.

Specifically,ReclamationfailedtoanalyzehowtheFirmingProjectandtheMoffatProject

wouldcumulativelyimpactColoradoRiverstreamflowsbelowWindyGap.

211. Further,ReclamationfailedtoanalyzehowtheFirmingProject,alongwith

theMoffatProject,wouldimpacttheoverallColoradoRiverwatermanagementsystem,

and,specifically,thelikelihoodofhasteningaColoradoRiverCompactCall,potentially

affectingallsevensignatorystatesinboththeUpperandLowerDivisions.

212. Reclamation’sfailuretoadequatelyanalyzetheFirmingProject’sindirect

andcumulativeimpactsontheColoradoRiverinconjunctionwiththeMoffatProject

violatesNEPAandwasarbitrary,capricious,andanabuseofdiscretionunder5U.S.C.§

706.


40

SEVENTHCLAIMFORRELIEFViolationoftheCleanWaterAct(40C.F.R.§230)

TheCorps’ViolationofCleanWaterActRequirements



214. WhentheCorpsconsidersa404permit,itmustindependentlydefineboth

theunderlyingpurposeandneedfortheproject.SierraClubv.VanAntwerp,709F.Supp.

2d1254,1263(S.D.Fla.2009);40C.F.R.§230.10;seealso33C.F.R.§325App.B§9(b)(4).

215. Further,theCorpsisrequiredtoconsiderreasonablealternativesthatwould

meettheunderlyingneedandavoidimpactstotheWatersoftheUnitedStates.33C.F.R.§

325App.B§9(b)(5)(a).

216. TheCorpsidentifiedanunderlyingpurpose,butnotanunderlyingneedfor

theproject.Itdefinedthebasicprojectpurposeasincreasingwatersupply.However,the

Corpsthenaccepted—withoutindependentverification—Reclamation’snarrowlydefined

needwhenitidentified“fixing”theWindyGapprojectastheproject’sbasicneed.

217. TheCorps’illogicalacceptanceofReclamation’snarrowneed,inthefaceof

itsownmuchbroaderdefinitionofprojectpurpose,ledtheCorpstoacceptthenarrow

rangeofalternativesintheFEIS—allofwhichaffectthewatersoftheUnitedStates—and

precludedtheCorpsfromconsideringallofthereasonablealternativesthatwouldachieve

theunderlyingpurposeandneedofwatersupplyandavoidimpactstothewatersofUnited

States.

218. TheCorps’failuretoindependentlydefinetheunderlyingneed,andits

subsequentfailuretoconsiderreasonablealternativesthatcouldaccomplishitsbroadly


41

definedpurposewithoutimpactstothewatersoftheUnitedStates,violatestheCWAand

wasarbitrary,capricious,andanabuseofdiscretionunder5U.S.C.§706.

REQUESTFORRELIEF

WHEREFORE,PetitionersSavetheColorado,SavethePoudre:PoudreWaterkeeper,

WildEarthGuardians,LivingRivers,andWaterkeeperAlliancerespectfullyrequestthatthe

Courtenterjudgmentgrantingthefollowingrelief:

1. DeclarethatReclamation’sRecordofDecision,aswellastheanalysis

underlyingit,violatedNEPAandisarbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,and

contrarytolawundertheAPA;

2. DeclarethattheCorps’RecordofDecisionviolatedCWASection404(b)(1)

andisarbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,andcontrarytolawundertheAPA;

3. VacateReclamation’sDecember19,2014,andtheCorps’May17,2017,

RecordsofDecisionfortheFirmingProject;

4. EnjoinanyactivitiesassociatedwithcarryingoutthePreferredAlternative,

includingbutnotlimitedtoconstructionactivitiesatthesiteoftheproposedChimney

HollowReservoirandanydiversionsfromtheColoradoRiverwhicharenotpermitted

undertheOriginalProject.

5. AwardPetitionerstheircostsoflitigation,includingreasonableexpert

witnessfeesandattorneyfees,pursuanttotheEqualAccesstoJusticeAct,28U.S.C.§2412,

and/oranyotherapplicableprovisionsoflaw;and

6. Grantpetitionerssuchfurtherreliefasmaybenecessaryandappropriateor

astheCourtdeemsjustandproper.


42

Respectfullysubmitted,

/s/KevinJ.Lynch KevinJ.Lynch,COBar#39873TimothyEstep,COBar#48553EnvironmentalLawClinicUniversityofDenverSturmCollegeofLaw2255E.EvansAve.,Ste.335Denver,Colorado80208Telephone:303‐871‐6140E‐mail:[email protected]

Dated:October26,2017Petitioners:SavetheColoradoPOBox1066FortCollins,CO80522SavethePoudre:PoudreWaterkeeperPOBox20FortCollins,CO80522WildEarthGuardians2590WalnutSt.Denver,CO80205LivingRiversPOBox466Moab,UT84532WaterkeeperAlliance180MaidenLaneSuite603NewYork,NY10038


in the united states district court for the...

Documents