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

Filing 774

STIPULATED AMENDED Final Judgment (Including Schedule For Remand), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/5/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
Lead Case:
1:09-cv-1053-LJO- BAM

8
9
10
11

THE CONSOLIDATED SALMONID
CASES

12

Member Cases:
1:09-cv-1090-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1378-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1520-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1580-LJO-DLB
1:09-cv-1625-LJO-SMS
STIPULATED AMENDED FINAL
JUDGMENT (INCLUDING
SCHEDULE FOR REMAND)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT
NO. 09-1053-LJO-BAM

1

In accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth.

2

v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014), which reversed in part and affirmed in part the following

3

Orders of this Court and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants: (1) the

4

September 20, 2011 Memorandum Decision Re Cross Motions For Summary Judgment (Doc.

5

633) and September 29, 2011 Order Re Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment (Doc. 643) on

6

the motions and cross-motions for summary judgment brought by: (a) Plaintiffs San Luis &

7

Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District (“San Luis Plaintiffs”), State

8

Water Contractors (“SWC”), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”),

9

Kern County Water Agency and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta (collectively “KCWA”), and

10

Stockton East Water District, Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation

11

District (“Stanislaus River Plaintiffs”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”); (b) plaintiff-in-intervention the

12

California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”); (c) Federal Defendants, the United States

13

Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National

14

Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), the United States Department of the Interior, and the

15

United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”); and (d) Defendant-Intervenors California

16

Trout, Friends Of The River, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern California Council

17

of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations/Institute

18

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

19

Bay Institute, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, the Court hereby enters this Amended Final

20

Judgment, which supersedes and replaces the prior Final Judgment (Including Schedule For

21

Remand) entered in this matter on December 12, 2011 (Doc. No. 655).

22
23

All claims of all parties in these consolidated cases have been decided. IT IS ORDERED
THAT:

24

(A) Judgment is entered in accordance with the March 5, 2010 Memorandum Decision Re

25

Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment On NEPA Issues (Doc. 266) and March 17, 2010 Order

26

Granting in Part Motion For Summary Judgment On NEPA Issues (Doc. 288), granting in part

27

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the claim that Reclamation violated NEPA by

28

failing to perform any NEPA analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the June
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
NO. 09-1053-LJO-BAM

1

1

4, 2009, ESA biological opinion issued by NMFS regarding the effects of the proposed

2

operations of the federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and the State Water Project (“SWP”) on

3

certain salmonid and other species and their critical habitat (the “2009 Salmonid BiOp”).

4

Specifically, the Court grants the San Luis Plaintiffs’ Fifth Claim for Relief that Reclamation

5

violated NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA analysis prior to provisionally adopting and

6

implementing the 2009 Salmonid BiOp; grants Plaintiff Stockton East Water District’s First

7

Claim for Relief as to Reclamation’s violation of NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA

8

analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the 2009 Salmonid BiOp; and grants

9

SWC’s Fourth Claim for Relief as to Reclamation’s violation of NEPA by failing to perform any

10
11
12
13
14

NEPA analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the 2009 Salmonid BiOp.
(B) Judgment is entered in favor of Federal Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors and
against Plaintiffs and plaintiff-in-intervention DWR on any and all remaining claims.
(C) In light of San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir.
2014), NMFS is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

15

(D) Reclamation’s December 2009 Provisional Acceptance of the RPA is REMANDED

16

WITHOUT VACATUR. Reclamation shall comply with its obligations under NEPA and issue a

17

finding of no significant impact or record of decision by no later than nineteen months from

18

entry of this Order.

19

(E) The motions for recovery of attorneys’ fees and/or costs filed by the San Luis

20

Plaintiffs and SWC pursuant to the Court’s Final Judgment (Including Schedule For Remand)

21

(Doc. 655) and Stipulation and Order Re Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and/or Costs (Doc. 688)

22

shall proceed pursuant to the Court’s Order adopting the Joint Stipulation Regarding Attorneys’

23

Fees and Other Expenses (Doc. 771). No motions for recovery of attorneys’ fees and/or costs

24

other than those filed by the San Luis Plaintiffs and SWC shall be considered.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: May 5, 2015

26

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
United States District Judge

27
28
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
NO. 09-1053-LJO-BAM

2