Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-57/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

958594.1 -1-

Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE DELTA SMELT CASES CONSOLIDATED CASE NO.

 1:09-cv-407-OWW-DLB

PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED WITH:

1:09-cv-480-OWW-GSA

1:09-cv-1201-OWW-DLB

AMENDED ORDER ON CROSSMOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA 

WATER AUTHORITY, et al. v. 

SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-407)

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-422)

COALITION FOR A SUSTAINABLE 

DELTA, et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al.

(Case No. 1:09-cv-480)

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. 

UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-631)

STEWART & JASPER ORCHARDS, 

et al. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al. 

(Case No. 1:09-cv-892)

FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE v. 

SALAZAR, et al. (Case No. 09-cv-1201)

The Court has read and considered the memoranda of points and authorities and other 

documents in support of and in opposition to the motions and cross-motions for summary 

judgment brought by: (1) Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority and Westlands 

Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, State Water Contractors, 

Coalition for a Sustainable Delta and Kern County Water Agency, Stewart & Jasper Orchards, 

Arroyo Farms, LLC, and King Pistachio Grove, and Family Farm Alliance; (2) plaintiff-inintervention the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”); (3) Federal Defendants the 

United States Department of the Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), and 

the United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”); and (4) Defendant-Intervenors Natural 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 763 Filed 12/27/10 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

27

28

958594.1 -2-

Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

Resources Defense Council and the Bay Institute. The Court has heard and considered the 

arguments of counsel at the hearing on these matters held on July 8 and July 9, 2010. The Court 

allowed subsequent supplemental briefing from the parties and the Court has also fully considered 

those briefs. 

The motions and cross-motions for summary judgment at issue relate to FWS’s December 

15, 2008 biological opinion (“BiOp”) regarding the effects of the proposed operations of the 

federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and the State Water Project (“SWP”). On December 14, 

2010, the Court filed its “Memorandum Decision Re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment” 

(Doc. 757). The December 14, 2010 memorandum decision constitutes the statement of reasons 

for the Court’s ruling. 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, and for the reasons more fully explained in the 

Court’s memorandum decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(A) Plaintiffs’ and DWR’s motions for summary judgment that the BiOp violates the 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“ APA”) are 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Federal Defendants’ and DefendantIntervenors’ cross-motions that the BiOp complies with the ESA and APA are GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

(B) Stewart & Jasper et al.’s motions for summary judgment that the BiOp failed to 

consider the economic impacts of promulgating the reasonable and prudent measures and that 

FWS illegally arrogated authority to itself over Reclamation and DWR are DENIED; Federal 

Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-motions are GRANTED.

(C) Family Farm Alliance’s motion for summary judgment on its Information Quality 

Act claim is DENIED; Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross-motions are 

GRANTED.

(D) Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for summary judgment that FWS violated the National 

Environmental Policy Act is DENIED; Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ crossmotions are GRANTED.

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 763 Filed 12/27/10 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

27

28

958594.1 -3-

Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

(E) Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment that Reclamation violated the ESA is 

DENIED; Federal Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ cross motions are GRANTED.

(F) The BiOp and its Reasonable and Prudent Alternative are arbitrary, capricious, and 

unlawful, and shall be REMANDED WITHOUT VACATUR to FWS for further consideration in 

accordance with this decision and the requirements of law. 

(G) All parties shall appear at a status conference on January 4, 2011 at 12:00 noon, in 

Courtroom 3 (OWW), to address any need for further proceedings. Parties are authorized to 

appear telephonically. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 763 Filed 12/27/10 Page 3 of 3