Firebaugh Canal Co, et al v. USA, et al

Filing 1010

ORDER Granting Joint Motion For Partial Stay (Doc. 1002 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/26/2015. (Fahrney, E)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

FIREBAUGH CANAL WATER DISTRICT and
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

) 1:88-cv-00634-LJO/DLB
) 1:91-cv-00048-LJO/DLB
) (Partially Consolidated)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
) ORDER GRANTING
) JOINT MOTION FOR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
) PARTIAL STAY
)
Defendants, and
)
)
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants-in-Intervention. )
)

12
13

The Court’s Partial Judgment on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re: Statutory

14

Duty, filed March 12, 1995, enjoined Federal Defendants to provide drainage to the San Luis

15

Unit of the Central Valley Project to comply with Section 1(a) of the San Luis Act of 1960. ECF

16

No. 442, at 11-12. The partial judgment further provided that “[t]his court reserves jurisdiction

17

to enforce compliance with this order and to enable the parties to apply to this court for such

18

other orders as may be necessary for the implementation of this judgment.” ECF No. 442, at 12.

19

The Order Modifying Partial Judgment On Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re:

20

Statutory Duty to Conform to Ninth Circuit Opinion, filed December 18, 2000 (ECF No. 654),

21

reiterated that the “[t]he Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Partial

22

Judgment, as amended herein.” ECF No. 654, at 5. In furtherance of the partial judgment, the

23

Federal Defendants committed to begin implementation of a drainage plan selected in the 2007

24

San Luis Feature Re-Evaluation Record of Decision (“2007 ROD”) in accordance with a Control

25

Schedule which the Court incorporated into a Scheduling Order in this case. See ECF No. 758.

26

Among other things, the Scheduling Order provided that “[n]othing in this Order precludes the

27

Federal Defendants from discussing with other Parties alternative means or locations of

28

providing drainage service within the San Luis Unit.” Id. at 2.
Order Granting
Joint Motion for Partial Stay
Case No. 1:88-cv-634-LJO/DLB
1322585.1 2010-048

1

1

In recent status reports advising the Court on their implementation of the drainage plan,

2

Federal Defendants have reported on discussions they have had with Westlands Water District

3

(“Westlands”) on a potential drainage settlement. See ECF No. 967, at 6; ECF No. 980, 3-4;

4

ECF No. 1000, at 3-4. On September 16, 2015, Federal Defendants reported that the United

5

States and Westlands had reached a settlement, and filed a Notice with the Court attaching a

6

copy of the executed Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”). ECF No. 1001. The Settlement

7

addresses the management of drainage within Westlands and settles litigation over drainage

8

service between the United States and Westlands. Implementation of the Settlement will depend

9

on the enactment of authorizing federal legislation.

10

Now before the Court is a Joint Motion for Partial Stay filed by Federal Defendants and

11

Westlands. The Joint Motion requests that the Court stay, until January 15, 2017, Federal

12

Defendants’ compliance with the partial judgment and subsequent Orders in this case requiring

13

them to implement drainage service within Westlands. The partial stay requested in the Joint

14

Motion is limited geographically to Westlands; it does not request a stay regarding Federal

15

Defendants’ implementation of drainage service in other parts of the San Luis Unit. The partial

16

stay requested is also limited temporally to the time between the present and January 15, 2017,

17

the date on which the Settlement becomes voidable if authorizing legislation is not enacted.

18

Through the Joint Motion, the Federal Defendants and Westlands seek to limit the expenditure of

19

federal appropriations on the implementation of the plan selected in the 2007 ROD within

20

Westlands while Congress considers legislation that would authorize the Settlement and an

21

approach to drainage service that may differ, and be less costly, than Federal Defendants’ plan.

22

In support of the Joint Motion, Federal Defendants and Westlands have submitted the

23

Declaration of Jason Phillips, who summarizes the estimated costs involved in implementing

24

Federal Defendants’ plan within Westlands. Federal Defendants and Westlands have also

25

submitted the Declarations of Jose Gutierrez and Phillip Ross, who assert that, under current

26

conditions of water shortage and groundwater hydrology, the partial stay requested in the Joint

27

Motion will not result in harm to landowners within Westlands or to lands outside of Westlands.

28
Order Granting
Joint Motion for Partial Stay
Case No. 1:88-cv-634-LJO/DLB
1322585.1 2010-048

2

1

The Court has also considered the responses to the Joint Motion. Contra Costa County,

2

Contra Costa County Water Agency, Natural Resources Defense Council, and The Bay Institute

3

(collectively, “Environmental Intervenors”) do not object to the proposed partial stay, but

4

reiterate that their non-opposition does not indicate “approval, consent, or acquiescence” with

5

respect to the Settlement, which Environmental Intervenors asserts “raises serious legal and

6

policy concerns, and, if approved and implemented, could cause serious adverse impacts to

7

Environmental Intervenors and the interests they represent.” ECF No. 1006. Likewise, Firebaugh

8

Canal Water District and Central California Irrigation District (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), do not

9

object to the proposed partial stay, with the understanding that this non-opposition does not

10

indicate consent or waiver in any way. ECF No. 1007. Plaintiffs assert that a comprehensive

11

drainage proposal that includes the Northerly Area and the Grasslands Bypass Project is essential

12

to evaluating any proposed alternative to the currently-operative 2007 ROD. Accordingly, their

13

non-opposition is “with the understanding that” Reclamation will rapidly complete “the proposed

14

settlement, if any, with the Northerly San Luis Unit Contractors and the participants in the

15

Grasslands Bypass Project ... so that the Court and United States Congress ... may see the total

16

outline of the proposed alternative.” Id. at 2.

17

Having reviewed all papers submitted with regard to the Joint Motion, the Court is

18

satisfied that the partial stay requested by Federal Defendants and Westlands will not harm the

19

public interest and serves the interest of judicial and Party economy. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY

20

ORDERED that the Joint Motion is GRANTED, and that Federal Defendants’ compliance with

21

the partial judgment and subsequent Orders requiring them to implement drainage service within

22

Westlands is hereby STAYED until January 15, 2017, unless extended by further Order of this

23

Court upon a noticed motion. During the period of the stay, Federal Defendants may, consistent

24

with applicable law, redirect appropriations designated for drainage activities within Westlands

25

to other, high-priority activities.

26
27

This order in no way suspends the Parties’ obligations to provide periodic status reports
to the Court. If, upon submission of the next status report, due in April 2016, little to no progress

28
Order Granting
Joint Motion for Partial Stay
Case No. 1:88-cv-634-LJO/DLB
1322585.1 2010-048

3

1

has been made toward completion of the terms of the Settlement, the Court will consider more

2

stringent reporting requirements, among other measures.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 26, 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting
Joint Motion for Partial Stay
Case No. 1:88-cv-634-LJO/DLB
1322585.1 2010-048

4