AquAlliance et al v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/7/2021: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion For a Temporary Restraining Order #6 be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction #6 is hereby set for hearing, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, on Thursday, 9/9/2021 at 10:00 AM via Zoom video conference before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. The courtroom deputy clerk will email counsel with the Zoom login information. (Kirksey Smith, K)

Case 2:21-cv-01533-KJM-DMC Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

AQUALLIANCE; CALIFORNIA
SPORTFISHING PROTECTION
ALLIANCE; and CALIFORNIA WATER
IMPACT NETWORK,

14
15
16
17
18
19

No. 2:21-cv-01533 KJM DMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND SETTING HEARING ON MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR; DEB HAALAND, in
her official capacity; and DOES
1 – 100,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs have moved for a temporary restraining order

24

and/or a preliminary injunction barring defendants from

25

continuing with a groundwater extraction project in the

26

Sacramento River Valley, including providing any funds or

27
28
1

Case 2:21-cv-01533-KJM-DMC Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 5
1

approving any groundwater pumping.1

2

on the request for a temporary restraining order was held before

3

the undersigned, acting as the duty judge, on September 7, 2021.

4

(Docket No. 6.)

A hearing

“The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to

5

preserve the status quo pending the complete briefing and

6

thorough consideration contemplated by full proceedings pursuant

7

to a preliminary injunction.”

8

Sacramento, No. 2:11-CV-02873-MCE, 2011 WL 5374748, at *3 (E.D.

9

Cal. Nov. 4, 2011) (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters,

10

415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (temporary restraining orders “should

11

be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving

12

the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is

13

necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer”); Reno Air Racing

14

Ass’n., v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006); Dunn v.

15

Cate, 2010 WL 1558562, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2010)).

16

Occupy Sacramento v. City of

Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary and drastic

17

remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a

18

clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v.

19

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam).

In order to

20

obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction,

21

the moving party must establish (1) it is likely to succeed on

22

the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

23

absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips

24

in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

25

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-21 (2008);

26
27
28

Plaintiffs’ complaint (Docket No. 1), filed on August
26, 2021, challenges the Bureau of Reclamation’s August 4, 2021
Finding of No Significant Impact after an environmental review.
The motion was filed on September 1, 2021.
2
1

Case 2:21-cv-01533-KJM-DMC Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 5
1

Humane Society of the U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th

2

Cir. 2009); Credit Bureau Connection, Inc. v. Pardini, 726 F.

3

Supp. 2d 1107, 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (standards for temporary

4

restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are the same).

5

“Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that

6

irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain

7

a preliminary injunction.”

8

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in

9

original).

All. for the Wild Rockies v.

The irreparable harm claimed here is that absent

10

injunctive relief, the Bureau of Reclamation will approve and

11

provide funding for groundwater pumping in the Sacramento River

12

Valley, leading to, among other things, damage to property from

13

land subsidence and aquifer depletion and harm to threated or

14

endangered species.

15

constitute irreparable harm, plaintiffs still must demonstrate

16

that the injury is immediately threatened.

17

Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988)

18

(citation omitted).

19

Assuming that these predicted effects

See Caribbean Marine

Plaintiffs have not carried this burden.

As explained by the government, the groundwater pumping

20

project seeks to incentivize groundwater pumping over obtaining

21

water from Shasta Basin reservoirs, though the Bureau “has just

22

received funding for the program and is only in the initial

23

stages of contacting water users about participation in this

24

program,” and “has not entered into any contracts under this

25

program and no payments have been made.”

26

Further, the Bureau represents that “it will not enter into any

27

contracts prior to September 9, 2021” and states that “it is

28

unlikely that any contracts will be in place for the next two to
3

(Docket No. 8 at 2.)

Case 2:21-cv-01533-KJM-DMC Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 5
1

three weeks.”

2

(Id.)

Plaintiffs have not shown that any irreparable harm

3

would occur before the court can conduct a full hearing on

4

plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and review full

5

briefing from the parties.2

6

pumping would immediately occur without injunctive relief or that

7

even if it did occur, irreparable harm to property or threatened

8

species would occur in the brief period of time between now and a

9

hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction, especially

The court has no evidence that

10

given the parties’ agreement to a hearing on the request for a

11

preliminary injunction later this week.3

12

conceded at the hearing that water users may pump groundwater

13

without the Bureau’s approval or any incentive payments, which

14

makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the court to assess

15

the immediate environmental impact of the Bureau’s program absent

16

a temporary restraining order.

Moreover, plaintiffs

17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a

18

temporary restraining order be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

19

Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby set for

20

hearing, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, on Thursday,

21

September 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom video conference before

22

the undersigned judge.4

The courtroom deputy clerk will email

23
The court notes that defendants’ full brief was filed
yesterday afternoon. (See Docket No. 14.)
2

24
25
26
27
28

The court expresses no opinion as to whether plaintiffs
have met their burden of showing that the other factors for
preliminary injunctive relief have been met.
3

Pursuant to the discussion at the hearing on the
request for a temporary restraining order, the parties have
4
4

Case 2:21-cv-01533-KJM-DMC Document 16 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 5
1

counsel with the Zoom login information.

2

Dated:

September 7, 2021

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

agreed to rely on the papers already submitted and do not request
to submit supplemental briefing before the September 9, 2021
hearing.
5