ELR Citation: 50 ELR 20252
No(s). 6:20-cv-00345-MK (D. Or. Nov 13, 2020) (McShane, J.)

A district court denied landowners' motion to preliminarily enjoin an irrigation project in central Oregon. The landowners first argued that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) violated NEPA by failing to include in its EA two farm-efficiency alternatives and an adequate analysis of the project's cumulative effects. The court found the Service set forth alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice and thus that its dismissal of the farm-efficiency alternatives was neither arbitrary nor capricious. It further found that while the EA conceded vegetation would shift away from artificial wetlands, those effects would be offset by the project's gains in water quality and habitat function, and thus that the Service properly concluded that the cumulative effects would be minor. The landowners next argued the EA failed to include a cost-benefit analysis and incorrectly addressed the effects the project would have on recreation in the Deschutes Basin, but the court found a cost-benefit analysis was unnecessary and nothing in the record suggested that NRCS conducted an arbitrary or capricious review of the impact on recreation. The landowners also brought state-law claims related to private nuisance and permissible right-of-way, but the court found they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of these claims. It therefore denied their motion for a preliminary injunction.