WILD EQUITY INSTITUTE V. USEPA, No. 15-17502 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILD EQUITY INSTITUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-17502 D.C. No. 4:15-cv-02461-PJH v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 14, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,** District Judge. Wild Equity filed this suit claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must reinitiate Endangered Species Act consultation with the Fish * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. and Wildlife Service about a 2001 permit because 1) new information shows the power plant authorized under the permit is causing greater harm to protected species than understood in 2001, and 2) “discretionary Federal involvement or control over [an agency] action has been retained or is authorized by law.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.16; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The district court dismissed this case on the ground that there is no federal agency action on which the EPA could consult—the 2001 permit expired before construction was complete and now has no operative effect. Wild Equity’s position on appeal is that as long as there was agency action in the past and the agency has some discretion over the subject matter of that agency action, the conditions for reinitiation are met. No new or ongoing agency action is required. The district court is correct. Although the 2001 permit was “agency action” at the time of its issuance, its expiration severed any connection to subsequent plant operation. The current plant operation cannot be plausibly described as “authorized . . . by” the expired 2001 permit. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Wild Equity offers no viable statutory interpretation or case law to bridge that gap. Because the plant was being operated without a valid permit, the EPA brought a civil enforcement suit that was settled with a consent decree in 2011, allowing the plant to remain in operation. Any argument that this consent decree 2 constitutes agency action is waived by Wild Equity’s statement that it “does not rely on the consent decree as a triggering event” requiring EPA to reinitiate consultation. See United States v. Laurienti, 611 F.3d 530, 543 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
