N. Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist., F067383

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Citation: 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 229,227 Cal.App.4th 832
• Decision Date: 03 July 2014
• Docket Number: F067383
• Parties: NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents; United States Bureau of Reclamation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

227 Cal.App.4th 832
174 Cal.Rptr.3d 229

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents;
United States Bureau of Reclamation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

F067383

Court of Appeal,
Fifth District, California.

Filed July 3, 2014

See 12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, § 836 et seq.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James M. Petrucelli, Judge. (Super. Ct. No. 12CECG00237)

Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Alexis E. Krieg and Daniel P. Garrett–Steinman, Oakland, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Pioneer Law Group, Andrea A. Matarazzo, Jeffrey K. Dorso; Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Thomas W. Birmingham and Harold Craig Manson, Carmichael, for Defendants and Respondents.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent United States Bureau of Reclamation.

OPINION
Kane, J.

[227 Cal.App.4th 838]

In February 2012, Westlands Water District and its related distribution districts (together Water Districts or respondents) ¹ entered into two-year, interim renewal contracts with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) relating to the Bureau's ongoing provision of Central Valley Project (CVP) water to Water Districts. The purpose of the interim renewal contracts was to continue the existing terms for water delivery in advance of the parties' anticipated execution of new, long-term (25–year) renewal contracts, which process was awaiting the Bureau's completion of environmental documentation necessary for the execution of such long-term agreements. When Water Districts approved the interim renewal contracts, they made specific findings that the renewals were exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). ² Accordingly, Water Districts did not undertake their own environmental review prior to such approvals. Thereafter, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Friends of the River, Save the American River Association, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe (collectively petitioners) filed a petition for writ of mandate in Fresno County Superior Court, contending that the interim renewal contracts were not exempt from CEQA and that Water Districts should have undertaken a full environmental review. The trial court disagreed and denied the petition for writ of mandate. Petitioners have appealed from the judgment of dismissal. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the matters contemplated in the interim renewal contracts were exempt from CEQA, including under the statutory exemption for ongoing pre-CEQA projects (Guidelines,³ § 15261) and the categorical exemption for the continued operation of existing facilities at the same level of use (Guidelines, § 15301). Therefore, we affirm the judgment below.

[227 Cal.App.4th 839]

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Contracting Parties

The subject agreements were entered into by the Bureau and Water Districts, each of which are public entities. The Bureau is the federal agency that operates the CVP, administers CVP water and enters into contracts to provide that water to contractors such as Water Districts (known as water service contracts). Water Districts are public entities established for the purpose of receiving CVP water and distributing that water to end-users (i.e., farmers) for beneficial use (i.e., irrigation to grow crops) on lands within Water Districts' boundaries. (See, e.g., Wat.Code, § 37800 et seq. [relating to Westlands Water District].)

Westlands Water District, by far the largest of respondent districts, serves over 600,000 acres of farmland on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Westlands Water District has had water service contracts in place with the Bureau since the 1960's and, through such contracts, has had a right to receive approximately 1 million acre-feet of CVP water per year, subject to water availability and other factors.⁴ The other two respondents, Westlands Distribution District No. 1 and Westlands Distribution District No. 2, which were formed more recently (in 2000 and 2002 respectively), have acquired additional CVP water rights by assignments from other water districts serving the area.⁵ Westlands Distribution District No. 1 and Westlands Distribution District No. 2, as the holders of those assigned water rights, are now the contracting parties for purposes of entering into renewals thereof.

With respect to Water Districts' existing contractual rights to receive CVP water, the Bureau and Water Districts are willing to enter into long-term renewal contracts, but that prospect has been delayed by the Bureau's failure to complete the required environmental documentation. In the meantime, the parties have agreed to a series of interim renewal contracts in order to continue water deliveries on the same terms as before. The six 2–year, interim renewal contracts entered into by the parties in 2012 are the subject of the instant appeal.

The CVP

Because the water that is the subject of the contracts between Water Districts and the Bureau is diverted, stored and delivered through CVP

[227 Cal.App.4th 840]

facilities (and is generally referred to as CVP water), we now explain what the CVP is and how it operates so that the issues before us may be seen within their larger context. The history and scale of the CVP are well-chronicled in the case law. (See, e.g., Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. (9th Cir.2003) 337 F.3d 1092, 1095–1096 (Westlands ).) In providing this general overview of the CVP, we shall draw upon the record below as well as on publicly known facts regarding the CVP that are reported in the case law.

The CVP is a federal reclamation project built within the major watersheds of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems and the Delta, providing water storage and distribution to the Central Valley of California. A recent federal opinion noted the following legal and factual background: “Reclamation projects are indispensible features of agriculture in the Western United States. ‘The Reclamation Act of 1902 set in motion a massive program to provide federal financing, construction, and operation of water storage and distribution projects to reclaim arid lands in many Western States.’ [Citations.] ... [¶] The Central Valley Project (‘CVP’) is ‘a system of dams, reservoirs, levees, canals, pumping stations, hydropower plants, and other infrastructure [that] distributes water throughout California's vast Central Valley.’ [Citation.] The CVP was originally ‘taken over and executed’ by the United States under the Reclamation Act and was reauthorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, Pub.L. No. 75–392, 50 Stat. 844, 850 (‘the CVP Act’). [Citation.]” (San Luis Unit Food Producers v. U.S. (9th Cir.2013) 709 F.3d 798, 801 (San Luis Unit ).) The Bureau is the agency within the United States Department of the Interior charged with administering the CVP. ( Westlands, supra, 337 F.3d at p. 1096; San Luis Unit, supra, at p. 801.)

As built and operated, the CVP is “the nation's largest water reclamation project and California's largest water supplier.” (In re Bay–Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1154, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 184 P.3d 709, fn. omitted.) It operates 21 reservoirs, 11 power plants, and 500 miles of major canals and aqueducts. With total storage capacity of more than 12 million acre-feet, the CVP delivers approximately 7 million acre-feet of water annually to over 250 water contractors, primarily for agricultural use in the Central Valley. (Ibid., fn. 1) The CVP “ ‘supplies two hundred water districts, providing water for about thirty million people, irrigating California's most productive agricultural region and generating electricity at [numerous] power plants.’ ” (San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority v. U.S. (9th Cir.2012) 672 F.3d 676, 682 (San Luis & Delta Mendota ), quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior (9th Cir.2004) 376 F.3d 853, 861.) The Bureau operates the CVP

[227 Cal.App.4th 841]

under water rights granted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (In re Bay–Delta, etc., supra, at p. 1154, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 184 P.3d 709.) ⁶

In 1960, Congress authorized the construction of the San Luis Unit “ ‘as an integral part’ ” of the CVP (the San Luis Act; Pub.L. No. 86–488 (Jun. 3, 1960) 74 Stat. 156).⁷ ( San Luis Unit, supra, 709 F.3d at p. 802.) The San Luis Act states that the “ ‘principal purpose’ ” of the Unit is to furnish water for irrigation. ( Ibid.) The San Luis Unit of the CVP includes the San Luis Dam and the San Luis Reservoir, along with a system of canals, channels and pumping plants. The San Luis Reservoir was constructed on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to store surplus water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and to provide water for irrigation and other purposes primarily in Merced, Fresno and Kings Counties. ( Westlands, supra, 337 F.3d at p. 1096.) ⁸ A pumping station at the Delta's southern end draws varying amounts of water that is conveyed by canals to the San Luis Unit and Reservoir. ( Ibid.) ⁹ Water from the San Luis Unit of the CVP is delivered to contractors (e.g., Water Districts), who then provide water to the end-users such as farmers on the west side of the Central Valley. ( Ibid.; see also San Luis Unit, supra, at p. 802.) The interim renewal contracts at issue in the present case relate to the ongoing provision of water by the Bureau to Water Districts from the San Luis Unit of the CVP.

We note in passing that when the San Luis Unit was authorized by Congress in 1960, it was on the condition that adequate drainage from the area served by that Unit was to be provided. (Firebaugh Canal Co. v. U.S. (9th Cir.2000) 203 F.3d 568, 570.) The reason for such a requirement was the common knowledge that “[i]rrigation and drainage are inherently linked” and “[a]ny water project that brings fresh water to...