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

Filing 646

JOINT STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/1/2011 regarding schedule for completion of remand. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES

CASE NOS.

11
12
13

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER
AUTHORITY, et al. v. GARY F. LOCKE,
et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1053)

14

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v.
NOAA, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1090)

1:09-cv-1053-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1090-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1378-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1520-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-2452-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1625-LJO-SMS

15

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v.
GARY F. LOCKE, et al.
(Case No. 1:09-cv-1378)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR
COMPLETION OF REMAND
Judge: Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al.
v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1520)
OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.
v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-2452)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. NMFS, et al.
(Case No. 1:09-cv-1625)

23
24
25
26
27
28
-1Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

RECITALS
1.

On September 20, 2011, the Court entered its Memorandum Decision re Cross

Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 633) in these Consolidated Salmonid Cases regarding the
2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion ("2009 Salmonid BiOp"). This decision found the 2009
Salmonid BiOp and its RPA arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and remands the 2009 Salmonid
BiOp to the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") for further consideration in accordance
with the Court’s decision and the requirements of law.
2.

On September 29, 2011, the Court entered its Order Allowing 30 Days for Further

Development of Proposed Schedule for Completion of Remand and Requiring Joint Status Report
(Doc. 642). This order granted the parties 30 days to confer to develop a mutually agreeable
schedule for the simultaneous National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and Endangered
Species Act (“ESA”) compliance on remand, and to submit a proposed form of judgment
reflecting such agreement. If parties did not reach agreement, the order directed the parties to
submit: (1) a single, joint status report articulating those issues on which the parties agree and the
parties’ separate positions on matters on which they disagree; and (2) proposed judgments, clearly
identifying language on which the parties agree and disagree. The 30 day deadline set by the
order will run on October 31, 2011.
3.

Since the Court's order, the parties have participated in discussions regarding a

schedule for simultaneous NEPA and ESA compliance on remand, but have not yet reached
agreement. However, these parties would like to continue these discussions, and agree they need
more time than the 30 days previously allowed to complete discussions and potentially reach
agreement.
Good cause exists for granting the parties more time to discuss and potentially reach
agreement on a process and schedule for completion of the remand, and the parties respectfully
request that the deadline previously set by this Court be modified as shown below.

26
27
28
-2Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

STIPULATION
Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Westlands Water District, State
Water Contractors, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coalition for a
Sustainable Delta, and Kern County Water Agency ("Plaintiffs"), Oakdale Irrigation District,
South San Joaquin Irrigation District, and Stockton East Water District ("Stanislaus River
Plaintiffs"), Plaintiff-Intervenor California Department of Water Resources ("DWR"), Federal
Defendants, and Defendant-Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, California Trout,
Friends of the River, Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations / Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sacramento River
Preservation Trust, San Francisco Baykeeper, The Bay Institute, and Winnemem Wintu Tribe, by
and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.

The October 31, 2011 deadline in the Court's previous order (Doc. 642), should be

vacated to allow for further discussions between now and December 2, 2011.
2.

The parties will continue discussions between now and December 2 regarding a

schedule for NEPA and ESA compliance on remand.
3.

If there is not agreement by December 2, 2011 among all parties regarding these

items, then the parties will submit to the Court: (1) a single, joint status report regarding a
schedule for completing NEPA and ESA compliance on remand articulating those issues on
which the parties agree and the parties' separate positions regarding matters on which they
disagree; and (2) proposed judgments, clearly identifying language on which the parties agree and
disagree.
SO STIPULATED.

24
25

Dated: October 31, 2011

NOSSAMAN LLP

26
27
28

By

/s/ Paul S. Weiland_____________
PAUL S. WEILAND
AUDREY HUANG
-3-

Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand

1

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KERN COUNTY WATER
AGENCY and COALITION FOR A
SUSTAINABLE DELTA

2
3

Dated: October 31, 2011

4
5

H. CRAIG MANSON
Westlands Water District
DIEPENBROCK HARRISON
A Professional Corporation
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD
A Professional Corporation

6
7
By
8
9
10

/s/_Daniel J. O’Hanlon
DANIEL J. O’HANLON
EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK
Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAN LUIS & DELTAMENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY and
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

11
Dated: October 31, 2011

BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP

12
13
By
14
15

/s/_Steven O. Sims_____________
STEVEN O. SIMS
MICHELLE C. KALES
Attorneys for Plaintiffs WESTLANDS WATER
DISTRICT

16
17

Dated: October 31, 2011

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP

18
19

By

20
21

/s/ Gregory K. Wilkinson_________
GREGORY K. WILKINSON
STEVEN M. ANDERSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE WATER
CONTRACTORS

22
Dated: October 31, 2011

MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

23
24
By
25
26

/s/ Christopher J. Carr____________
CHRISTOPHER J. CARR
WILLIAM M. SLOAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

27
28
-4Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand

1
2
Dated: October 31, 2011

HERUM CRABTREE

3
4
By
5
6

/s/ Jennifer L. Spaletta____________
JENNIFER L. SPALETTA
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT

7
Dated: October 31, 2011

O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS LLP

8
9
By
10
11

/s/ William C. Paris______________
WILLIAM C. PARIS III
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and SOUTH
SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

12
13

Dated: October 31, 2011

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of the State of California

14
15
By
16
17
18
19

/s/ Clifford T. Lee_______________
CLIFFORD T. LEE
CECILIA L. DENNIS
ALLISON GOLDSMITH
Deputies Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES

20
Dated: October 31, 2011
21
22

IGNACIA S. MORENO, Assistant Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief

23
24
25

By

/s/ Bridget Kennedy McNeil_______
BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL, Trial Attorney
Wildlife and Marine Resources Section
Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS

26
27
28
-5Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand

1
2
Dated: October 31, 2011

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

3
4
By
5
6

/s/ Katherine S. Poole____________
KATHERINE S. POOLE
DOUG OBEGI
Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL

7
8

Dated: October 31, 2011

EARTHJUSTICE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

By

/s/ Erin M. Tobin_______________
MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD
ERIN M. TOBIN
Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors CALIFORNIA
TROUT, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATION
OF FLY FISHERS, PACIFIC COAST
FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S
ASSOCIATIONS/INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES
RESOURCES, SACRAMENTO RIVER
PRESERVATION TRUST, SAN FRANCISCO
BAYKEEPER, THE BAY INSTITUTE,
WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ORDER
Good cause appearing, and based on the stipulation of the parties, the court hereby orders
as follows:
1.

The October 31, 2011 deadline in the Court's previous order (Doc. 642) is vacated.

2.

The parties shall continue to endeavor to develop a mutually agreeable schedule

that achieves simultaneous ESA and NEPA compliance on remand. If the parties reach agreement
by December 2, 2011, then the parties shall submit a proposed form of Judgment to the Court by
December 2, 2011.
3.

If there is not agreement by December 2, 2011 among all parties then the parties

shall by December 2, 2011 submit to the Court: (1) a single, joint status report regarding a
schedule for completing NEPA and ESA compliance on remand and articulating those issues on
which the parties agree and the parties' separate positions regarding matters on which they
disagree; and (2) proposed judgments, clearly identifying language on which the parties agree and
disagree.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 1, 2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Schedule for Completion of Remand