Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03527/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03527-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

Defendant;

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER

AUTHORITY; and WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT,

Defendants-Intervenors

(remedies phase only). /

No. C 05-3527 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant United States Bureau of Reclamation moves to dismiss

this action as moot, or, in the alternative, to remand this case to

the agency for further action. Defendants-Intervenors San Luis &

Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District join in

Defendant's motion. Plaintiff Planning and Conversation League

opposes the motion. The matter was submitted on the papers.

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court

GRANTS Defendant's motion and dismisses this case as moot. 

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 108 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 2

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff challenges the environmental review

of a proposed 500-foot-long pipeline and related pumps, which would

connect the main delivery canals of two water diversion 

projects -- the federal Central Valley Project and California's

State Water Project -- in California's Central Valley. The

proposed pipeline is known as the Delta-Mendota Canal/California

Aqueduct Intertie (Intertie Project). 

Plaintiff filed this action on August 31, 2005, challenging

Defendant's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in approving the

Intertie Project and signing a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI), instead of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). After learning that construction on the Intertie Project

was slated to begin on February 6, 2006, Plaintiff sought a

temporary restraining order. On February 3, 2006, the Court

granted Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order

and enjoined Defendant from beginning construction on the Intertie

Project until the preliminary injunction hearing. On February 14,

2006, the Court heard argument on Plaintiff's motion for a

preliminary injunction. The next day, the Court ordered that, for

the reasons explained in the order granting the temporary

restraining order, Defendant was enjoined from beginning

construction on the Intertie Project until this case is decided on

the merits. A hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary

judgment is scheduled for May 26, 2006.

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 108 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 3

On March 13, 2006, Defendant voluntarily withdrew its FONSI

for the Intertie Project. Defendant has stated that it will

prepare an EIS related to the Intertie Project and will not begin

construction of the Intertie Project until an EIS is completed and

a record of decision is executed. The following day, Defendant

filed this motion to dismiss the case as moot. On March 31, 2006,

Plaintiff filed its opposition, noting that, although Defendant

withdrew its FONSI, Defendant had not terminated its construction

contract to build the Intertie Project. Plaintiff stated that, if

Defendant terminated its construction contract, Plaintiff would

support a stay of this action. Less than a week later, Defendant

issued notice to Slayden Construction Group, Inc. to terminate its

construction contract. On April 6, 2006, Slayden acknowledged

receipt of the termination notice.

DISCUSSION

As the Supreme Court has explained, a "case might become moot

if subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly

wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs., Inc.,

528 U.S. 167, 170 (2000). Defendant and Defendants-Intervenors

contend that Defendant's voluntary actions have made this case

moot. Plaintiff disagrees, noting that the standard "for

determining whether a case has been mooted by the defendant's

voluntary conduct is stringent." Id. Although the standard is

stringent, the Court finds that Defendant has meet its burden.

There is no reason to believe that, if this case were

dismissed, Defendant would rely on the withdrawn FONSI to commence

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 108 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 4

construction of the Intertie Project. Defendant is aware that, if

it were to do so, it would quickly find itself back before this

Court. And the Court has already made clear that there is a strong

likelihood that Plaintiff would succeed on at least one of its

arguments that an EIS is required. 

As noted above, Defendant has withdrawn the FONSI, terminated

its construction contract and committed not to go forward with

construction of the Intertie Project without preparing an EIS. 

Like the court in Burton v. Norton, 308 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C.

2004), the Court is inclined to accept these representations,

especially in view of the concrete actions taken by Defendant. In

addition to cancelling the construction contract, Defendant has

terminated the supply contract for pumps and motors, issued a stopwork order on the supply contracts for the butterfly and check

valves, directed the cancellation of all supply solicitations for

the power transmission line contract and solicited a contractor to

prepare an EIS. "Absent a showing of bad faith, representations

made by an administrative agency are entitled to a presumption of

good faith." Calton v. Babbitt, 147 F. Supp. 2d 4, 8 (D.D.C.

2001). Plaintiff provides no evidence to suggest bad faith. Nor

does Plaintiff provide evidence to suggest that Defendant's present

intention to comply with NEPA is illusory and temporary. 

In addition, the cases Plaintiff cites where courts have

rejected mootness arguments are distinguishable. For example,

unlike here, the defendants in Malama Makua v. Rumsfeld, 136 F.

Supp. 2d 1155 (D. Haw. 2001), did not commit to preparing an EIS;

the defendants acknowledged that their voluntary withdrawal of the

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 108 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

1

Plaintiff's request to file a sur-reply (Docket No. 106) is

GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to strike Intervenor's reply (Docket

No. 107) is DENIED.

5

Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) and the FONSI could

result in a "decision to prepare an EIS, to issue a revised FONSI,

or to re-issue the previous SEA and FONSI substantially unchanged." 

136 F. Supp. 2d at 1164. In the cases Plaintiff cites there were

reasons for the courts to find that the defendants might resume the

challenged activity. But, here, although Defendant states that it

withdrew the FONSI to solicit further comment from interested

parties and not because it should have prepared an EIS in the first

place, there are no facts to suggest that Defendant will build the

Intertie Project based on the FONSI. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will not force Defendant

to defend a decision that it has withdrawn. Defendant's motion to

dismiss as moot (Docket No. 94) is GRANTED. This complaint is

dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall recover its costs

from Defendant.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/15/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 108 Filed 05/15/06 Page 5 of 5