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

Filing 643

ORDER RE: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/29/2011. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CASE NOS.
CONSOLIDATED SALMONID CASES
SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA
WATER AUTHORITY, et al. v. GARY F.
LOCKE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1053)
STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT
v. NOAA, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1090)

1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-1090-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-1378-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-1520-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-1580-OWW-DLB
1:09-cv-1625-OWW-SMS
ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v.
GARY F. LOCKE, et al.
(Case No. 1:09-cv-1378)
KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY,
et al. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv1520)
OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
et al. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv1580)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. NMFS,
et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1625)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court has read and considered the memoranda of points and authorities and all
other documents and evidence in support of and in opposition to the motions and crossmotions for summary judgment brought by: (1) Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta Mendota Water
Authority and Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
State Water Contractors, Kern County Water Agency, and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta
(collectively, “Export Plaintiffs”); (2) Plaintiffs Stockton East Water District, Oakdale
Irrigation District, and South San Joaquin Irrigation District (collectively, “Stanislaus River
1

1

Plaintiffs”); (3) Plaintiff-Intervenor California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”); (4)

2

Defendants United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

3

Administration, United States National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), United States

4

Department of the Interior, and United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”)

5

(collectively, “Federal Defendants”); and (5) Defendant-Intervenors California Trout, Friends

6

Of The River, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern California Council of the

7

Federation of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen‘s Associations/Institute for

8

Fisheries Resources, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, San Francisco Baykeeper, The Bay

9

Institute, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe (collectively, “Defendant-Intervenors”).1
The Court has heard all the testimony and evidence, and the arguments of counsel at the

10
11

hearing on these matters held on December 16 and 17, 2010.

12

The motions and cross-motions for summary judgment at issue relate to NMFS’s June

13

4, 2009, biological opinion (“BiOp”) regarding the effects of the proposed operations of the

14

federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and the State Water Project (“SWP”). On September

15

20, 2011, the Court filed its “Memorandum Decision Re Cross Motions for Summary

16

Judgment (Docs. 430, 435, 446, 474, 477)” (“Memorandum Decision”; Doc. 633).

17

September 20, 2011 Memorandum Decision constitutes the statement of decision for the

18

Court’s ruling.
Good cause appearing, and for the reasons more fully explained in the Court’s

19
20

The

Memorandum Decision, IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

21

Export Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment that the BiOp violates the

22

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) is

23

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-

24

Intervenors’ cross-motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth in

25

the Memorandum Decision.
(2)

26

Plaintiff-Intervenor DWR’s motion for summary judgment that the BiOp

27

violates the ESA and APA is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and Federal

28

1

The Export Plaintiffs, Stanislaus River Plaintiffs, and DWR are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs.”

2

1

Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-motions are GRANTED IN PART AND

2

DENIED IN PART, as set forth in the Memorandum Decision.
(3)

3

Stanislaus River Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment that the BiOp violates

4

the ESA and the APA is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and Federal

5

Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-motions are GRANTED IN PART AND

6

DENIED IN PART, as set forth in the Memorandum Decision.
(4)

7

Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment that Reclamation violated the ESA

8

and/or the APA are DENIED; and Federal Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-

9

motions are GRANTED.
(5)

10

The BiOp and its Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (“RPA”) are

11

ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, and UNLAWFUL, and are REMANDED WITHOUT

12

VACATUR to NMFS for further consideration in accordance with the Memorandum Decision

13

and the requirements of law. Such remand without vacatur is not intended to be issue or claim

14

preclusive to the extent it could be cited as a ground to prevent the hearing or decision on any

15

provisional remedy justified in law or equity.
(6)

17
18
19

The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to the fullest extent permitted by

(7)

16

Within five (5) days of service of this Court’s Memorandum Decision Federal

law.

Defendants shall provide a proposed date by which they shall file the new BiOp and any RPA.

20
21

SO ORDERED
Dated: September 29, 2011
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3