People v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
| Decision Date | 19 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12–55856,12–55956.,s. 12–55856 |
| Parties | People of the State of CALIFORNIA ex rel. IMPERIAL COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; County of Imperial, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the United States Department of Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Defendants–Appellees, Imperial Irrigation District; San Diego County Water Authority; Coachella Valley Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellees. People of the State of California ex rel. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; County of Imperial, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. U.S. Department of the Interior; Sally Jewell, Secretary of the United States Department of Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Defendants, and Imperial Irrigation District; San Diego County Water Authority; Coachella Valley Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael L. Rood and Katherine Turner, County of Imperial, County Counsel, El Centro, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants–Cross–Appellees.
Alene M. Taber (argued), Michael L. Tidus, Kathryn M. Casey, and Jonathan E. Shardlow, Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Peckenpaugh, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellant–Cross–Appellee People of the State of California ex rel. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
Antonio Rossmann, Roger B. Moore, and Barton Lounsbury, Rossmann and Moore, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants–Cross–Appellees County of Imperial.
Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General, David C. Shilton, Stephen M. Macfarlane, Norman L. Rave, Jr., and Peter J. McVeigh (argued), United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.; Robert Snow, M. Rodney Smith, Jr., Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., for Defendants–Appellees.
Kurt R. Wiese, General Counsel, and Barbara Baird, District Counsel, Diamond Bar, CA, for Amicus Curiae South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Catherine Redmond, District Counsel, Fresno, CA, for Amicus Curiae San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
Katherine C. Pittard, District Counsel, Sacramento, CA, for Amicus Curiae Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
Dennis Marshall, County Counsel, and William M. Dillon, Senior Deputy, Santa Barbara, CA, for Amicus Curiae Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
Nancy Diamond, District Counsel, Law Offices of Nancy Diamond, Arcata, CA, for Amicus Curiae North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District.
David D. Cooke, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, San Francisco, CA; David L. Osias and Mark J. Hattam, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, San Diego, CA; Jeffrey M. Garber, General Counsel, Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, CA, for Intervenor–Defendant–Appellee–Cross–Appellant Imperial Irrigation District.
Marcia L. Scully, General Counsel, John D. Schlotterbeck, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Adam C. Kear, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Los Angeles, CA; Linus Masouredis, Chief Deputy General Counsel, Sacramento, CA, for Intervenor–Defendant–Appellee–Cross–Appellant The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Steven B. Abbott and Julianna Strong, Redwine and Sherrill, Riverside, CA; Michelle Ouellette and Melissa R. Cushman, Best Best & Krieger LLP, Riverside CA, for Intervenor–Defendant–Appellee–Cross–Appellant Coachella Valley Water District.
Lisabeth D. Rothman and Amy M. Steinfeld, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel S. Hentschke, General Counsel, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego, CA, for Intervenor–Defendant–Appellee–Cross–Appellant San Diego County Water Authority.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:09–cv–02233–AJB–PCL.
Before: PAUL J. WATFORD and ANDREW D. HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief District Judge.*
The Salton Sea—the largest inland body of water in California—is a creature of accident. In 1905, water from the Colorado River breached an irrigation canal and flooded the then-dry Salton Basin. After the initial flood, irrigation runoff from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys—supplied by the Colorado River—sustained the Sea for more than a century. The Sea has become a unique attraction for water-based recreation in the harsh southern California desert.
The Sea's continued access to Colorado River water is in jeopardy. Over the last few decades Arizona and Nevada began to claim their full entitlements to the stream. California, which has long used more than its share, has been required to conserve. The affected California water districts ultimately agreed to transfer some Colorado River water from the Imperial Valley to urban areas in southern California. The Secretary of the Interior—who controls the delivery of River water—prepared an environmental impact statement (“EIS”), which, among other things, analyzed the effect of these agreements on the Salton Sea. Despite noting some potentially serious environmental consequences, the Secretary eventually approved the agreements and implemented a new water delivery schedule.
Plaintiffs Imperial County and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (the “Air District”) then sued the Secretary, claiming that the EIS did not comply with either the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) or the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The Imperial Irrigation District (“Imperial Irrigation”), San Diego County Water Authority (“San Diego Water”), Coachella Valley Water District (“Coachella”), and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”), parties to the transfer agreements, intervened as defendants. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that neither plaintiff had standing to sue. We disagree as to standing, but nonetheless affirm the judgment, because the district court correctly found in the alternative that the Secretary did not violate NEPA; the record below also makes plain that the Secretary did not violate the CAA.
In 1922, the Colorado River basin states agreed to divide the River's waters among upper- and lower-basin states. Colorado River Compact, 70 Cong. Rec. 324 (1928). In 1928, Congress ratified the compact in the Boulder Canyon Project Act, Pub.L. No. 70–642, 45 Stat. 1057 (). California, Arizona, and Nevada are the lower-basin states.
In 1931, various southern California irrigation and water districts agreed to a framework for distributing the State's share of Colorado River water. This “Seven Party Agreement” created seven priorities and—unrealistically assuming an everlasting surplus of river water—divided 5.362 million acre feet per year (“mafy”) 1 among the contracting districts. Priorities 1, 2, 3(a), 3(b), 6(a), and 6(b) in the Seven Party Agreement were either unquantified or shared among the districts. Agreement Requesting Apportionment of California's Share of the Waters of the Colorado River Among the Applicants in the State (Aug. 18, 1931), available at http:// www. usbr. gov/ lc/ region/ pao/ pdfiles/ ca 7 pty. pdf. The Secretary and the California districts then incorporated the terms of the Agreement into water delivery contracts. See43 U.S.C. § 617d.
In 1963, the Supreme Court held that the Boulder Canyon Project Act limited California's Colorado River allotment to 4.4 mafy. Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 564–65, 83 S.Ct. 1468, 10 L.Ed.2d 542 (1963). California could exceed this annual allowance only if (1) the other lower-basin states did not use their allotments or (2) there was actually surplus water. Id. at 560–61, 83 S.Ct. 1468. The Secretary then promulgated regulations defining surplus. See 43 C.F.R. pt. 417.
The immediate effects of Arizona v. California on California were mitigated, however, because the Secretary designated water as “surplus” rather liberally, proclaiming surpluses when none truly existed. But eventually the Secretary made plain that it was time for California to live within its 4.4 mafy means. In response, the lower-basin states, the California water districts, and the Secretary considered methods to reduce California's dependence on Colorado River water.
In 1998, Imperial Irrigation and San Diego Water reached a preliminary agreement under which Imperial Irrigation would conserve up to 300 thousand acre-feet per year (“kafy”) of water, which would then be “transferred” to San Diego Water. In 1999, the Secretary and Imperial Irrigation initiated a joint NEPA and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) study to consider the effects of the proposed transfer.2Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority Water Conservation and Transfer Project, 64 Fed.Reg. 52,102 (Sept. 27, 1999). This “Transfer EIS,” which is not at issue today, considered off-river impacts of the transfer and possible environmental mitigation measures. See id.
In 1999, several water districts negotiated preliminary “Quantification Settlement Agreements” to reduce Colorado River water usage, to quantify and cap Priorities 3 and 6 in the Seven Party Agreement, and to authorize interdistrict transfers of conserved Imperial Irrigation water. These agreements would have limited Imperial Irrigation's Priority 3(a) to 3.1 mafy.
In 2001, prompted by the proposed Quantification Settlement Agreements, the Secretary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California ex rel. Imperial Cnty. Air Pollution Control Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...and ANDREW D. HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief District Judge.* ORDERThe opinion filed May 19, 2014, and published at 751 F.3d 1113, is amended as follows:At slip opinion page 32, in the fourth and fifth textual sentences in the second full paragraph,Change: “Imperial Ir......
-
Chaudhry v. City of L. A.
... ... unconstitutional discrimination against homeless and disabled people, because LACAN did not plead facts plausibly suggesting intentional ... The City defendants concede in their brief to us that a successful claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment ... ...