Natural Resources Defense Council et al v. Norton et al

Filing 1407

FINAL JUDGMENT on Plaintiffs' Second, Fourth and Fifth Claims signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/28/2020. Case to remain open but stayed.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL, et al.,

11
Plaintiffs,

No. 1:05-cv-01207 DAD-EPG
FINAL JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND, FOURTH, AND FIFTH CLAIMS

12
v.
13
14
15

DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Interior, et al.,

CASE TO REMAIN OPEN BUT STAYED

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA
WATER AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors.

20
21

ANDERSON-COTTONWOOD
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.,

22

Joined Parties.

23
24

On March 12, 2018, a coalition of environmental interest groups led by the Natural Resources

25

Defense Council (“NRDC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed the currently operative Sixth

26

Supplemental Complaint (“6SC”), which includes numerous claims brought under the Administrative

27

Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.

28

§ 1531 et seq., against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau” or “Reclamation”), the U.S. Fish

1

1

and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) (collectively, “Federal Defendants”), and various Joined Defendants

2

and Defendant Intervenors.1 (See generally Doc. No. 1187.)

On November 3, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ request for entry of separate judgment

3
4

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to their second, fourth, and fifth claims for

5

relief. (Doc. No. 1403.) The court’s November 3, 2020 order also contained a detailed

6

explanation of the procedural history of this case and summarized the second, fourth and fifth

7

claims for relief. (See generally id.) Most pertinent here are the following key events. On

8

February 23, 2017, the court dismissed the fifth claim for relief2 based upon an argument

9

presented in a motion to dismiss filed by the Federal Defendants. (Doc. No. 1069.) The court

10

declined to address any other arguments regarding the fifth claim for relief. (Id. at 43.) On

11

February 26, 2019, the court granted motions for summary judgment as to the second and fourth

12

claims for relief3 filed by the Federal Defendants, Joined Parties, and Defendant-Intervenors.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

1

Collectively, the Joined Parties and Defendant Intervenors are: Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation
District, Beverly F., Arnold A., Michael D. and Mark C. Andreotti, Carter Mutual Water
Company, Conaway Preservation Group LLC, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Howald Farms,
Inc., Knights Landing Investors, LLC, Maxwell Irrigation District, Meridian Farms Water
Company, Natomas Central Mutual Water Company, Oji Brothers Farm, Inc., Oji Family
Partnership, Pacific Realty Associates (aka M&T Chico Ranch), Pelger Mutual Water Company,
Pelger Road 1700, LLC, Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company, Princeton-CodoraGlenn Irrigation District, Provident Irrigation District, Reclamation District No. 108, Reclamation
District No. 1004, City of Redding, Henry D. Richter, et al., River Garden Farms Company, Sutter
Mutual Water Company, David and Alice teVelde Family Trust, Tisdale Irrigation and Drainage
Company, Windswept Land and Livestock Company, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water
Authority, Westlands Water District, Coelho Family Trust, Eagle Field Water District, Fresno
Slough Water District, Mercy Springs Water District, Oro Loma Water District, Tranquillity
Irrigation District, Banta-Carbona Irrigation District, Patterson Irrigation District, West Stanislaus
Irrigation District, The West Side Irrigation District, Del Puerto Water District, James Irrigation
District, West Stanislaus Irrigation District, and Byron Bethany Irrigation District.

22
2

23
24
25
26
27
28

Generally, the fifth claim for relief alleged that, in light of die offs of ESA-listed winter-run and
spring-run Chinook salmon that took place in 2014 and 2015 in the Upper Sacramento River,
Reclamation should have reinitiated consultation under the ESA over the impacts to those species
of Reclamation’s renewal of long-term contracts for the delivery of water from the federal Central
Valley Project. (Doc. 1187 at ¶¶ 195-200.)
The fourth claim for relief alleged that a 2015 “Letter of Concurrence” (“2015 LOC”) authored
by the FWS was the culmination of an inadequate ESA consultation regarding the effects of longterm contract renewals on the ESA-listed delta smelt. (Doc. 1187 at ¶¶ 189-194.) The second
claim for relief alleged that Reclamation acted unlawfully by accepting the 2015 LOC and
implementing the long-term water supply contracts in reliance on the 2015 LOC. (Id. at ¶¶ 201–
205.)
3

2

1

(Doc. No. 1314.) Plaintiff’s cross-motions for summary judgment as to the second and fourth

2

claims were denied. (Id.)

3

In light of these rulings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

(1) On Plaintiffs’ Second Claim, final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants David

5

Bernhardt,4 in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and Brenda Burman, in her official

6

capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation; and in favor of Defendant-Intervenors

7

and Joined Parties.5
(2) On Plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim, final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants David

8
9

Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and Aurelia Skipwith,6 in her official

10

capacity as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and in favor of Defendant-Intervenors

11

and Joined Parties.

12

/////

13

/////

14

/////

15

/////

16

/////

17

/////

18
4

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Ryan Zinke was subsequently automatically
substituted as a federal defendant for Sally Jewell, and David Bernhardt was subsequently
automatically substituted as a federal defendant for Ryan Zinke.
5

Plaintiffs object to entry of judgment in favor of the joined parties as to any of the three claims
at issue in this order on the ground that none of the claims are asserted against any of the
Defendant-Intervenors and Joined Parties. While this may be true, Defendant-Intervenors and
Joined Parties have been permitted to intervene or have been joined to this case as defendants.
Plaintiffs have pointed to no authority that suggests these parties are not entitled to the benefit of
judgment under such circumstances. In fact, when plaintiffs were themselves defendantintervenors in a related lawsuit, they obtained judgment in their favor on claims that similarly were
asserted only against federal agencies. See Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases, 1:09-cv-00407OWW-DLB, Doc. No. 884 (Amended Judgment entered May 18, 2011). Whether the claims were
resolved by motion to dismiss or by way of summary judgment is of no moment in reaching this
conclusion. However, whether Defendant-Intervenors and/or Joined Parties are entitled to
anything else (such as costs of suit) in light of this court’s repeated admonition that they not
multiply the proceedings is an entirely separate question that is not before the court at this time.
6

Aurelia Skipwith is automatically substituted as a federal defendant for Greg Sheehan pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
3

1

(3) On Plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants David

2

Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior and Brenda Burman, in her official

3

capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation; and in favor of Defendant-Intervenors

4

and Joined Parties.

5
6
7
8

This case shall remain in an OPEN but STAYED status.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 28, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4