San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 1114

ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE RE REQUEST TO EXTEND REMAND SCHEDULE (Doc. 1109) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on February 19, 2014. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Lead Case: 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM 4 5 THE CONSOLIDATED DELTA SMELT CASES 6 7 8 Member Cases: 1:09-cv-00480- LJO -GSA 1:09-cv-00422- LJO -GSA 1:09-cv-00631- LJO -DLB 1:09-cv-00892- LJO -DLB Partially Consolidated With: 1:09-cv-01201- LJO -DLB 9 ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE RE REQUEST TO EXTEND REMAND SCHEDULE (Doc. 1109) 10 11 12 Lead Case: 1:09-CV-01053-LJO-BAM 13 14 15 16 THE CONSOLIDATED SALMONID CASES 17 Member Cases 1:09-CV-01090-LJO-DLB 1:09-CV-01378-LJO-DLB 1:09-CV-01520-LJO-SMS 1:09-CV-01580-LJO-DLB 1:09-CV-01625- LJO-SMS 18 ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE RE REQUEST TO EXTEND REMAND SCHEDULE (Doc. 745) 19 20 21 22 23 24 The Court has preliminarily reviewed the Joint Status Report (“JSR”) filed yesterday, February 18, 2014, in which Federal and State Defendants request an additional one year extension to the respective remand schedules in the Consolidated Delta Smelt and Consolidated Salmonid cases. Smelt 25 Doc. 1109; Salmonid Doc. 745. While all parties appear to be in agreement that some form of 26 27 28 additional extension is warranted, several Plaintiffs and Defendant Intervenors request a shorter (six month) extension. State Contractor Plaintiffs propose that specific benchmarks be imposed. JSR at 151 1 16. Kern County Water Agency and the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta complain about specific 2 resource allocation and participation issues, and appear to be requesting that several additional 3 4 conditions be imposed upon the remand process, including the requirement that CSAMP devise a “structured approach for development of a new BA and new BiOps that will provide a roadmap 5 6 whereby scientific data, analyses, and findings that emerge from the collaborative adaptive 7 management process are integrated into the [ESA compliance process].” JSR at 19. Defendant 8 Intervenors warn that such a “structured approach” should not lose sight of the fact that the 9 collaborative scientific processes in which the parties are currently engaged” is not and cannot be a 10 substitute for the agencies' performing their independent obligations under section 7 of the Endangered 11 12 13 14 Species Act, nor obligate the agencies to incorporate any findings that emerge from CSAMP into [the ESA compliance process].” JSR at 20. The Parties indicate that, due to time constraints related to filing the JSR, they have not had 15 time to review the separate positions of the State Contractors, Kern County Water Agency and the 16 Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, and/or Defendant Intervenors. JSR at 12 n.4. The Court believes it 17 would be helpful for the Federal and State Defendants to file a response addressing: (1) the possibility 18 19 of a six month, as opposed to a one year, extension, with a status report due shortly before expiration of the six month extension; and (2) the various conditions proposed and central concerns raised by the 20 21 separate position statements. Any such response shall be filed on or before February 28, 2014 and 22 shall not exceed eight (8) pages in length. Unless the Court specifically orders further briefing, the 23 matter shall be deemed submitted for decision on the papers upon the filing of Defendants’ response. 24 SO ORDERED Dated: February 19, 2014 25 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill United States District Judge 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?