USA v. Escondido Mutual Wat
FINDINGS AND ORDER Granting Motion For Approval Of Settlement And Dismissal Of Claims. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/26/2017. (mdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 RINCON BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS; and LA JOLLA BAND OF
6 MISSION INDIANS,
CASE NO. ’69-CV-0217-WQH-KSC
FINDINGS AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND
DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS
9 CITY OF ESCONDIDO (on its own
behalf and as successor to the
10 ESCONDIDO MUTUAL WATER
COMPANY); JEFF B. SESSIONS,
11 Attorney General of the United States;
and RYAN ZINKE, Secretary, U.S.
12 Department of the Interior,
14 PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS;
PAUMA BAND OF MISSION
15 INDIANS; SAN LUIS REY RIVER
INDIAN WATER AUTHORITY; and
16 SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION
18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CASE NO. ’72-CV-0271-WQH-KSC
21 CITY OF ESCONDIDO (as successor to
the ESCONDIDO MUTUAL WATER
22 COMPANY) and VISTA IRRIGATION
PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS;
25 PAUMA BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS; SAN LUIS REY RIVER
26 INDIAN WATER AUTHORITY; and
SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION
1 RINCON BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS and LA JOLLA BAND OF
2 MISSION INDIANS,
CASE NO. ’72-CV-0276-WQH-KSC
5 VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
7 PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS;
PAUMA BAND OF MISSION
8 INDIANS; SAN LUIS REY RIVER
INDIAN WATER AUTHORITY; and
9 SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION
Findings of Fact
The Court finds that:
The parties to this litigation have reached a settlement of these
15 consolidated cases that requires the approval of this Court.
The terms of that settlement are set forth in three documents now before
17 this Court for approval pursuant to section 104(2) of the San Luis Rey Indian Water
18 Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (Public Law No. 100-675, 102 Stat. 4000) (the
19 “Settlement Act”), as amended:
The settlement agreement among all the parties dated January 30,
2015, and amended on August 29, 2016 (“Settlement
Agreement”), an agreement that Congress approved and ratified in
section 3605(a) of Public Law No. 114-322 (December 16, 2016);
The agreement among all the parties except the United States
dated December 5, 2014 (“Implementing Agreement”), an
agreement that Congress found to conform to the requirements of
the Settlement Act, see Pub. Law No. 114-322, § 3605(a)
(December 16, 2016); and
The stipulation filed with this Court on January 19, 2017
The Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation, entered into by all the
4 parties, and the Implementing Agreement, entered into by all parties other than the
5 United States, provide for the final and complete resolution of all claims,
6 controversies, and issues asserted, or subject to assertion, in these consolidated
7 actions, in fulfillment of Section 104 of the Settlement Act.
The Settlement Agreement provides fair and reasonable terms for the
9 resolution of the matters addressed therein.
The Implementing Agreement provides fair and reasonable terms for the
11 use by the parties thereto of Local Water and Supplemental Water (as those terms are
12 defined in the Settlement Agreement), and for financial and other consideration
13 among the parties thereto.
14 / / /
In addition to those three documents, several other documents are part of the
resolution of the larger dispute, including:
1. The January 18, 2001, Implementation Agreement among all the parties,
recognizing the statutory obligation to deliver up to 16,000 acre-feet of water
per year, subject to the conditions specified in the Settlement Act;
2. The October 10, 2003, Allocation Agreement among all the parties and
others to allocate the water conserved from the All American Canal Lining
Project and the Coachella Canal Lining Project;
3. The October 10, 2003, Agreement Relating to Supplemental Water among
all the parties as well as the Metropolitan Water District of California;
4. The October 10, 2003, Agreement for the Conveyance of Water among all
the parties as well as the San Diego County Water Authority;
5. The September 30, 2007, Permanent Arrangement for Power Capacity and
Energy among the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, the Local
Entities (meaning the City of Escondido and the Vista Irrigation District), the
Welton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, and the Yuma County
Water Users’ Association; and
6. The October 11, 2007, Agreement among the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, the Welton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District,
and the Yuma County Water Users’ Association and the October 10, 2000,
Letter Agreement and the October 2, 2007, letter attached to that October 11,
FERC also issued a Conditional Order in the Project No. 176 proceedings on
September 25, 2012, setting forth the terms for issuance of a conduit exemption and
license surrender upon approval of the Settlement Agreement and conclusion of the
proceedings in this Court. See City of Escondido and Vista Irrigation Dist., 140
F.E.R.C. ¶ 62,226 (Sept. 25, 2012).
All parties understand and agree with the terms of the Settlement
2 Agreement and the Stipulation, and all parties to the Implementing Agreement
3 understand and agree with its terms, and all parties represent that they have received
4 adequate legal representation in reaching these terms.
The parties’ joint motion for approval of the settlement and dismissal of their
7 claims is granted as follows:
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The Court approves
9 the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 18-2), including its Amendments (ECF No. 1810 3) and Addendum (ECF No. 18-4). The Settlement Agreement (including the
11 Amendments and Addendum) is incorporated into the Court’s final judgment by
12 reference as if fully set forth herein.
APPROVAL OF STIPULATION. The Court approves the Stipulation
14 (ECF No. 18-8), including all attachments thereto (ECF Nos. 18-9 through 18-15).
15 The Stipulation (including all attachments) is incorporated into the Court’s final
16 judgment by reference as if fully set forth herein.
APPROVAL OF IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT. The Court
18 approves (as to the signatories thereto) the Implementing Agreement (ECF No. 18-5),
19 including the exhibits thereto (ECF Nos. 18-6 and 18-7), as a component of the
20 complete resolution required under Section 104 of the Settlement Act.
CONTINUING JURISDICTION. This Court retains continuing
22 jurisdiction over this action and the parties thereto for the sole purpose of interpreting
23 and enforcing the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and the Stipulation. The
24 remedy for breach of any provision of the Settlement Agreement or the Stipulation
25 shall be limited to declaratory and injunctive relief.
DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS. The claims in these consolidated actions are
27 dismissed with prejudice as among the parties (including any party’s successors or
28 assignees or officials or agents of the parties acting within the scope of their duties),
1 except to the extent necessary to allow this Court to retain continuing jurisdiction as
2 discussed above; provided, however, that such dismissal shall not preclude or prevent
3 any party or any party’s successor or assignee from asserting any claim against any
4 person or entity not a party to the Settlement Agreement.
FEES AND COSTS. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and
NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing in this order or the Court’s final
8 judgment is intended to confer upon any person or entity other than the parties (or
9 any party’s successors or assignees) any right or remedy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 Dated: April 26, 2017
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?