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)
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?