Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-88-1658 LKK

Plaintiffs,

O R D E R

v.

KIRK C. RODGERS, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

During oral argument on August 11, 2005, the Friant

defendants suggested that they had a vested and permanent right

to a certain supply of water that was not derived solely from

the contracts. They further stated that it would be

inappropriate for this court to review the beneficial use of the

water from Friant Dam because of Water Code § 1126 and because

those rights are vested and protectable until either the State

Water Resources Control Board or the state courts say

differently. 

////

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1164 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 3
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

26

2

They derive this argument from Water Code § 1126(c) stating

that: 

It says that determinations of the Water Board - - the

Water Board is vested with the authority to make

determinations of competing beneficial uses, just as

it did in D935. And that is subject to review - -

judicial review, and that’s by state courts. 

And that’s as it should be because there is an

infusion of policy that overlays this which is not an

appropriate thing for the federal government to be

doing on behalf of the state – - for the federal

judiciary to be doing on behalf of the state.

It is not clear to the court exactly what the defendants

were referring to, but it appears that it may be significant

enough that further briefing is required for clarification.

Accordingly the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Friant defendants are directed to SUBMIT to this court

and serve on plaintiffs and all other parties, a brief not to

exceed 15 pages by August 30, 2005 explaining what was meant at

oral argument. Plaintiffs are granted until September 14, 2005

to submit a response not to exceed 25 pages. The Friant

defendants are then granted additional 10 pages upon which to

reply by no later than September 28, 2005. These page ranges

are a maximum not a minimum and the court will not consider any

arguments made which do not relate to the above-raised issue.

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1164 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 3
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

26

3

2. The order submitting the issues argued at oral argument

is vacated, and the matter will stand submitted upon Friant

defendants’ filing of their reply brief, unless the court orders

further oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 15, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1164 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3