United States v. State of Cal.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. No. S-81-180 RAR.
• Citation: 529 F. Supp. 303
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

529 F. Supp. 303

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.

Civ. No. S-81-180 RAR.

United States District Court, E. D. California.

December 22, 1981.

As Amended January 4, 1982.

Francis M. Goldsberry, II, First Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Civ. Div., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff.

Victor Gleason, Deputy Gen. Counsel, The Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Cal., Los Angeles, Cal., Clifford Schulz, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Sacramento, Cal., Kenneth A. Kuney, Berryhill, Kuney & Burckhardt, Tulare, Cal., John A. Wilson, Wilson & Hoslett, Thomas M. Zuckerman, Zuckerman & Hartmann, Stockton, Cal., Cressey H. Nakagawa, Gordon E. Davis, William H. Booth, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, W. Reece Bader, Orrick, Herrington, Rowley & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., Russell Kletzing, Asst. Chief Counsel, Marcia J. Steinberg, Staff Counsel, Cal. Dept. of Water Resources, Sacramento, Cal., Gregory K. Wilkinson, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., Frederick Bold, Jr., Bold & Polisnor, Walnut Creek, Cal., Stuart L. Somach, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Interior, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAMIREZ, District Judge.

The plaintiff, United States of America, commenced this action for declaratory relief, seeking an adjudication that the regulations imposed by the State of California, acting through the State Water Resources Control Board, on the operation of the Central Valley Project were inconsistent with the Congressional authorizing statute and thus unenforceable. The State of California has moved to dismiss. For reasons stated fully, infra, the motion of the State of California to dismiss is granted.

The United States, acting through the Water and Power Resources Service, owns and operates the Central Valley Project (hereinafter the CVP), whereby water is diverted from the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and transported to agricultural lands in southern San Joaquin Valley.¹ The United States appropriates the waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins pursuant to permits issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. The CVP, along with the State Water Project (hereinafter the SWP),² is the major consumer of the water resources of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.³

The State Water Resources Control Board is that agency of the State of California designated by the Legislature to exercise the adjudicatory and regulatory functions of the State in the field of water resources, Cal.Water Code § 174. Accordingly, it is the State Water Resources Control Board that acts upon applications to appropriate the water resources of the State, Cal.Water Code §§ 179, 1250. Additionally, it is the State Water Resources Control Board which is vested with the authority to impose terms and conditions on a permit to appropriate water, Cal.Water Code § 1253.

When the State Water Resources Control Board originally issued the permits which authorize the United States to appropriate the waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, it reserved jurisdiction to thereafter impose terms and conditions on said permits. Eventually, the Board noticed a proceeding to determine what terms and conditions, if any, it would impose on both the CVP and the SWP in order to protect the water quality of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The administrative proceedings were protracted and complicated. The United States appeared and participated in a limited way.⁴ In addition to the United States, other participants in the Delta Hearings included the California Department of Water Resources,⁵ local water agencies which contract with the CVP and the SWP for the delivery of water, and several Delta interests.

Upon completion of the evidentiary hearings and after the receipt of comment on the Draft Delta Water Quality Control Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the State Water Resources Control Board issued the Final Delta Water Quality Control Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Board also issued Decision 1485, which implements the Final Delta Water Quality Control Plan.

Decision 1485, along with the PLAN and the EIR, attempts to balance the competing demands on the water resources of the Delta by (1) setting certain water quality control standards, (2) requiring the permittees to monitor the water quality in the Delta, and (3) requiring the permittees to reduce the amount of water diverted from the Delta whenever the water quality fell below the set standard.

The issuance of Decision 1485 resulted in a flood of litigation in the state courts. All factions, e.g., both the Delta interests and the southern San Joaquin Valley agricultural interests, were dissatisfied with the Decision, and fourteen different parties, including the United States, filed fourteen petitions for writs of mandate in the state courts pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. These fourteen actions are pending in the state courts and have been consolidated pursuant to the California Rules of Court.

Three years after the issuance of Decision 1485 and three years after its filing of the state court action challenging that decision, the United States filed the instant action likewise challenging the decision.

I MAY THE UNITED STATES COMMENCE A DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE COURT ACTION IN WHICH PRECISELY THE SAME ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED?

The first ground upon which the State of California has moved to dismiss is its contention that the United States is engaged in forum-shopping, and as such, is not entitled to relief pursuant to the provisions of the Declaratory Relief Act.

While the parties are agreed that the federal district court may dismiss an action for declaratory relief if the grant of declaratory relief would not be "appropriate," Geni-Chlor International, Inc. v. Multisonics Development Corp., 580 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1978), the parties differ as to whether the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case would indeed be "appropriate".

The State of California points out that the issues raised by the United States in its federal action are word-for-word identical to the issues raised by the United States in its petition for a writ of mandate. In this regard, the State of California relies on three Ninth Circuit cases standing for the proposition that district courts should refuse declaratory relief when there is pending in the state court comparable litigation between the parties, Geni-Chlor International, Inc. v. Multisonics Development Corp., supra, Shell Oil Co. v. Frusetta, 290 F.2d 689 (9th Cir. 1961), and H. J. Heinz v. Owens, 189 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1951).

The United States responds by seeking to limit the Ninth Circuit cases cited by the State of California to their facts, and citing considerable authority for the proposition that the "mere" pendency of a state court action, even where the parties are identical, does not preclude an action for declaratory relief in federal district court. Western Casualty and Surety Co. v. Teel, 391 F.2d 764 (10th Cir. 1968), Maryland Casualty Co. v. Faulkner, 126 F.2d 175 (6th Cir. 1942), Chicago Metallic Mfg. Co. v. Edward Katzinger Co., 123 F.2d 518 (7th Cir. 1941), Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Hartridge, 282 F.Supp. 604 (D.C.Ark.1968), Tyrill v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 172 F.Supp. 363 (S.D. N.Y.1958), Pacific Fire Ins. Co. v. Reiner, 45 F.Supp. 703 (E.D.La.1942); see Peabody Coal Co. v. Erwin, 453 F.2d 398 (6th Cir. 1971), Johnston v. Atlas Mineral Prod. Co., 140 F.2d 282 (6th Cir. 1944), Maryland Casualty Co. v. Consumers Finance Service, 101 F.2d 514 (3rd Cir. 1938); cf. Carpenter v. Edmonson, 92 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1937).⁶ In addition thereto, the United States vigorously contends that the point upon which the issue turns is whether the state court action will settle the dispute between the parties raised by the declaratory relief action.

The issue which the United States wants settled by this declaratory relief action is whether the terms and conditions imposed on the CVP permit by Decision 1485 are consistent with Congressional authorization of the CVP. The United States Supreme Court, in California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 98 S.Ct. 2985, 57 L.Ed.2d 1018 (1978), held that the State Water Resources Control Board did in fact have the authority to impose terms and conditions on the use and distribution of water appropriated pursuant to a permit issued to the United States, so long as the terms and conditions were not inconsistent with Congressional directives. Naturally, the United States now concedes that the State Water Resources Control Board may impose some terms and conditions on its use and distribution of Delta waters. The challenge that the United States makes to Decision 1485 is that the particular terms and conditions are inconsistent with Congressional directives.

The United States concedes, as it must, that this precise issue is raised in its petition for a writ of mandate. In the present litigation, however, the United States takes the position that the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue, and that therefore this issue will not be resolved by the state court action.⁷

The argument of the United States with respect to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court is as follows: The Superior Court's jurisdiction is described and limited by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 which provides that the Superior Court may disturb the decision of an administrative agency only if (1) the agency lacked jurisdiction or acted in excess of its jurisdiction, (2) the agency denied the petitioner a fair hearing, or (3) the agency abused its discretion. The United States points out that the consistency of the terms and conditions of Decision 1485 with Congressional mandate was not a part of the administrative proceeding,⁸ and as such, that aspect of the administrative decision cannot be reviewed in the Superior...