## Facts

- The Bureau of Reclamation operated the Klamath Irrigation Project, which supplied water to Oregon irrigation districts, ranchers, and landowners.
- The Bureau initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under ESA § 7 after concluding project operations might affect two endangered fish species.
- FWS issued a Biological Opinion finding that long-term project operation was likely to jeopardize the species and proposing a “reasonable and prudent alternative” requiring minimum reservoir water levels.
- The Bureau stated it would operate the project in compliance with the Biological Opinion, reducing water deliveries to project users.
- Water users and districts sued FWS officials and the Secretary of the Interior, alleging the jeopardy finding and minimum water-level requirements violated the ESA and were unlawful under the APA.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing, concluding the plaintiffs’ asserted interests were outside the ESA’s zone of interests; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether ESA § 11(g)’s citizen-suit provision permits suit by plaintiffs alleging economic injury from unlawful implementation of the ESA (zone-of-interests/statutory standing).
2. Whether an FWS Biological Opinion and accompanying Incidental Take Statement constitute “final agency action” reviewable under the APA.
3. Whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III injury, causation, and redressability from reduced water deliveries tied to the Biological Opinion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the plaintiffs fell within the ESA’s zone of interests for claims asserting violations of ESA provisions, including procedural limits designed to consider economic impacts.
- The Court held the Biological Opinion and accompanying Incidental Take Statement were “final agency action” under the APA.
- The Court concluded the plaintiffs alleged concrete economic injury fairly traceable to the Opinion and redressable by judicial relief.

## Legal Principles

- The ESA citizen-suit provision’s authorization for “any person” to sue is broad and is not limited to plaintiffs asserting conservationist or environmental interests.
- The zone-of-interests test is not especially demanding where Congress authorizes suit in expansive terms; economic interests can fall within the ESA’s protective scope when the claimed injury arises from an alleged statutory violation.
- An agency action is “final” under the APA when it (1) marks the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process and (2) determines rights or obligations or produces legal consequences.
- ESA Biological Opinions and Incidental Take Statements can be final agency action when they have direct and appreciable legal consequences, including practically constraining an action agency’s choices through liability risk and establishing conditions that define lawful operation.
- ESA citizen-suit authority and APA review can operate concurrently; challenges may proceed under the APA where its prerequisites, including final agency action, are satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Court held that water users alleging economic injury from unlawful ESA implementation may sue under the ESA’s citizen-suit provision, and that FWS Biological Opinions and Incidental Take Statements are reviewable as final agency action under the APA when they carry concrete legal consequences for project operations.


Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)