San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
| Decision Date | 02 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 1:11-cv-00952 LJO GSA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants. |
This case presents a potential conflict between two provisions of the 1992 Central Valley Improvement Act ("CVPIA"), Pub. L. No. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4700 (1992). CVPIA § 3406(b)(2) requires the Secretary of the Interior (the "Secretary") to dedicate 800,000 acre-feet ("AF") of water to serve certain fish and wildlife restoration purposes. CVPIA § 3411(b) requires the Secretary to comply with a 1985 Agreement Between the United States of America and the Department of Water Resources of the State of California for Coordinated Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (otherwise referenced as "Coordinated Operations Agreement" or "COA"), Article 6(g) of which in turn requires the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ("Reclamation" or "the Bureau") to export and store as much water as possible within its physical and contractual limits" when the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ("Delta") is in "excess water conditions.1
Plaintiffs are San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority ("Authority") and one of theAuthority's Member Districts, Westlands Water District ("Westlands"). Defendants are the United States Department of the Interior and its member agencies, Reclamation, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), along with various officials of those agencies (collectively, "Federal Defendants"). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on June 9, 2011, during a period when the Delta was in "excess water conditions," complaining that, contrary to the mandate in CVPIA § 3411(b) to export as much water as possible, Reclamation ordered reduced export pumping for a two-week period starting on June 8, 2011, pursuant to the Secretary's authority under CVPIA § 3406(b)(2).
Before the Court for decision are cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs request summary judgment on their Second Claim for Relief, arising under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), which alleges that, by imposing pumping restrictions during June 2011, Federal Defendants undertook a final agency action not in accordance with law. See Doc. 99 (notice of motion); Doc. 1 (Complaint) at ¶¶ 50-55. Alternatively, Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their First Claim for Relief, an APA claim arising under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), which alleges Federal Defendants unlawfully withheld agency action by not maximizing exports during the period of reduced pumping in June 2011. See Doc. 99; Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 45-49. Federal Defendants filed a combined cross motion and opposition. Docs. 104 & 105. Plaintiffs filed a combined opposition and reply, Doc. 107, to which Federal Defendants replied, Doc. 109. The motions became ripe on June 24, 2014. Due to the convergence of pending motions in numerous related cases, the Court inquired whether the legal issues raised by these cases were likely to be of practical importance before the end of the 2014 water year. Doc. 108. All parties agreed that the Court could defer ruling on these motions without likely practical consequence in the interim. Doc. 110. In accordance with Local Rule 230(g), the Court decides the pending motions on the papers, without oral argument.
When Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit, they filed simultaneous motions for temporary and permanent injunctive relief. Docs. 9 & 10. The previously assigned District Judge, Oliver W. Wanger,denied the motions on the grounds that, among other things, Plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of success on the merits or that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, in part because it was unclear at the time whether the challenged action would result in any impact on Plaintiffs' water supply. See Doc. 49 at 9-12.2 The pumping reduction expired of its own accord.
Soon thereafter, this and other related cases were transferred to the undersigned upon Judge Wanger's retirement. See Doc. 50. On January 27, 2014, Federal Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on mootness grounds. Doc. 56. In denying the motion, the Court concluded Plaintiffs' claims were technically moot, but were nevertheless cognizable because there was a reasonable expectation of repeat conduct in light of the fact that similar pumping reductions were ordered during excess conditions on at least one prior occasion. Doc. 66 at 12-27.
On July 27, 2012, Federal Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that (a) Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and (b) Plaintiffs failed to challenge a final agency action. Doc. 69. The motion was denied. Doc. 73.
The administrative record was lodged on February 8, 2013. Doc. 77. On May 1, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for discovery. Doc. 83. The magistrate judge denied that motion without prejudice on November 22, 2013. Doc. 94. These cross-motions followed.
A helpful summary of relevant history of the Central Valley Project ("CVP") and COA is set forth in a 1985 House Report addressing H.R. 3113, which eventually would become Public Law 99-546. H.R. Rep. No. 99, 257 (1985), "PROVIDING FOR THE COORDINATED OPERATION OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IN CALIFORNIA" ("COA House Report"). As the COA House Report explains, the CVP was planned in the 1920s and 1930s to be a state-funded project. Id. at 2. However, when California failed to finance fully the construction of the project, the federal government stepped in. Id. Among other things, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 844, 850, authorized the Secretary to construct the CVP as a federal project and stated that the purposes of the project were:
...improving navigation, regulating the flow of the San Joaquin and the Sacramento River, controlling floods, providing for storage and for the delivery of the stored water thereof, for the reclamation of arid and semi-arid lands and lands of the Indian Reservations, and other beneficial uses, and for the generation and sale of electric energy as a means of financially aiding and assisting such undertakings and in order to permit the full utilization of the works constructed to accomplish the aforesaid purposes.
Pub. L. No. 75-392, § 2, 50 Stat. 844, 850. The Rivers and Harbors Act also prioritized the use of CVP facilities, indicating the CVP's features "shall be used, first for river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control; second, for irrigation and domestic uses; and third, for power." Id. In the late 1950s, the State of California began planning for the construction of a parallel State Water Project ("SWP"), the construction of which was authorized and funded in 1960. COA House Report at 3.
The Delta sits at the heart of both the CVP and SWP.
The plan of development for the CVP and the SWP was to store millions of acre-feet of surplus flows from the rivers in the north in order to make water available for use as far south as Southern California. The essential link in these plans is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It is through this area that water stored in the north flows for delivery to water users in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California....
Id. at 4. At the same time, the Delta itself is of critical geographic importance.
As time passed, competition for water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds increased. See id. Complicating the landscape, the California State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB"), the State agency charged with the task of issuing permits to appropriate water and exercising functions related to water pollution and quality control, see Cal. Water Code § 179, began issuing water quality standards for the Delta in 1967. COA House Report at 5. These water quality standards have been extensively re-written several times, including in 1978, with the issuance of SWRCB Decision 1485 ("D-14853"). The SWRCB recognized in D-1485 that coordination between the CVP and SWP was essential to the implementation of D-1485's water quality standards:
To ensure protection of Delta beneficial uses and to make optimum use of storage pumping and conveyance facilities, operation of the CVP and SWP must be coordinated. Separation of the effects of the two projects on Delta water supplies, uses and environment is not possible. Therefore, terms and conditions related to the Delta, including those for protection of fish and wildlife, must be the same in all of these permits. Inclusions of such terms in some, but not all, of the permits for the CVP and SWP would create confusion and would be unworkable. Therefore, maintenance of the water quality standards set forth in this decision, including flows to be maintained for protection of fish and wildlife will be imposed as a condition of all of the CVP and SWP permits....
There was never any serious dispute that the SWP, managed by the State, was required to comply with restrictions imposed to meet State water quality standards. However, the Bureau long maintained that it was not required to meet the State standards. See COA House Report at 5. This position ultimately led to litigation. Id. at 6. Uncertainty related to this dispute clouded water resource decision-making for many years. Id. As the COA House Report explained:
Delta interests opposed water development projects until water quality was protected. Those proposing new projects sought to authorize Federal or State facilities, notwithstanding the opposition of Delta interests. The result...
To continue reading
Request your trial