Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00690/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00690-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GALE A. NORTON, et al.,

Defendants,

 

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION;

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER

AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER

DISTRICT; and STATE WATER

CONTRACTORS, 

Proposed Intervenors.

 

No. C 05-00690 CW

ORDER ON MOTIONS

FOR LEAVE TO

INTERVENE AS

DEFENDANTS

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, Applicants

California Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau), San Luis &

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 11
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

Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District

(Authority) and State Water Contractors (SWC) (collectively,

Applicants) move to intervene as defendants in this action. The

motion is opposed by Plaintiffs Natural Resources Defense

Council, California Trout, Baykeeper and its Deltakeeper

Chapter, Friends of the River and The Bay Institute

(collectively, Plaintiffs). Defendants Gale Norton, sued by

Plaintiffs in her capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and

Matthew Hogan, sued by Plaintiffs in his capacity as Acting

Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), (collectively, Defendants) have not taken a position

on the motion. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties, the Court grants Authority and Farm Bureau's motions

for leave to intervene and denies SWC's motion for leave to

intervene. 

BACKGROUND

I. Underlying Action

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that federal

agencies considering certain actions must consult first with the

Secretary to verify that the action “is not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In this

case, the Secretary delegated her authority to the Service

pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(8). The consulting federal

agency and the Service must “use the best scientific and

commercial data available” to meet this requirement of

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 11
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

consultation. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(8)(2005). 

After consultation, the Service must issue a written opinion

with a summary of this data “detailing how the agency action

affects the species or its critical habitat.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536

(b)(3)(A). 

On or about March 22, 2004 the United States Bureau of

Reclamation asked the Service for formal consultation on the

coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and

State Water Project (SWP) which provide water to much of

California. Plaintiffs’ claims in this action arise from the

Service’s analysis in its June 30, 2004 and February 15, 2005

Operating Criteria and Plan Biological Opinions (OCAPBO)

regarding proposed changes to the coordinated operations of the

CVP and SWP, for their potential impact on the delta smelt, a

two-to-three inch fish listed under the ESA. Plantiffs allege

that the OCAPBO analysis is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse

of discretion in violation of the ESA section 7, its

implementing regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). First Am. Compl. (FAC) ¶ 56. 

Plaintiffs allege that the Service failed to consider whether

the proposed agency action would adversely impact the delta

smelt habitat and the recovery of the smelt, available

scientific data and the full effects of the action. FAC ¶¶ 42,

48, 49. 

Plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief,

including inter alia (1) a declaration that the Secretary’s

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 11
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

issuance of the OCAPBO was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion and in violation of the APA; (2) an order requiring

the Secretary to withdraw the OCAPBO and reinitiate deliberation

with respect to the future operation of the CVP and SWP and the

proposed action concerning the South Delta Improvement Program;

(3) an order enjoining Defendants from relying on the OCAPBO. 

FAC ¶¶ A-C. 

Defendants have not yet filed an answer. 

II. Applicants for Intervention

By separate motions, Applicants seek to intervene as

defendants in this action as of right under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or, in the alternative, permissively

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2).

Authority has thirty-two member water agencies that contract

with the United States for water supply from the CVP. Loss of

water supplies from the CVP would adversely impact the regions

the members serve. Additionally, Authority is subject to direct

regulation under the terms of the disputed OCAPBO because it

operates various CVP facilities. The Farm Bureau is composed of

fifty-three county bureaus with 89,000 private members, over

50,000 of whom rely on contracted supplies of either CVP or SWP

water for agricultural purposes. The SWC has twenty-seven

public agencies as members, all of whom receive water from the

SWP. All Applicants have an interest in continued sources of

affordable supplies of water. Applicants and their members have

participated in regulatory and judicial processes relating to

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 4 of 11
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

1July 30, 2004 Service OCAPBO; February 15, 2005 Service

OCAPBO; Long-Term CVP OCAP; CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of

Decision; and Service’s Five-Year Status Review for the Delta

Smelt; Order Granting Motions to Intervene of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California in Envtl.

Protection Info. Ctr. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., C-02-

5401; Order Granting Motions to Intervene of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of California in Envtl.

Defense Ctr. v. Norman Mineta, CV-00-1212; Order Granting Motion

to Intervene of the United States District Court for the Central

District of California in Southwest Ctr. for Biological

Diversity v. Davies, CV-99-02821; and Petition for Writ of

Mandate, SWC’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

of Motion to Intervene and the Stipulation and Order for

Intervention in the California Superior Court case Cal. Farm

Bureau Fed’n v. Chrisman, Case No. 04CS0049.

5

the Bay-Delta waterways. 

Applicants also request judicial notice of various Service 

documents and court orders in similar cases.1 The Court grants

these requests. 

LEGAL STANDARD

To intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), “an applicant must claim an interest

the protection of which may, as a practical matter, be impaired

or impeded if the lawsuit proceeds without” the applicant. 

Forest Conservation Council v. United States Forest Serv., 66

F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit applies a

four-part test to motions under Rule 24(a):

(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must

claim a “significantly protectable” interest relating to

the property or transaction which is the subject of the

action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the

disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair

or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4)

the applicant’s interest must be inadequately protected by

the parties to the action.

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 5 of 11
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 6

Id. (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1481 (9th Cir.

1993) (citation omitted)). 

The Ninth Circuit interprets Rule 24(a) broadly in favor of

intervention. Id. In evaluating a motion to intervene under

Rule 24(a), a district court is required “to take all wellpleaded, nonconclusory allegations in the motion . . . as true

absent sham, frivolity or other objections.” Southwest Ctr. for

Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). 

A court may also at its discretion permit intervention “when

an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a

question of law or fact in common.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). 

In exercising its discretion, a court is to “consider whether

the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication

of the rights of the original parties.” Id. 

DISCUSSION

I. Intervention as of Right Under Rule 24(a)(2)

A. Timeliness, Protectable Interests and Impairment of 

Ability to Protect Interests

Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint and no

dispositive motions have been filed. All of the members of

Authority have contracts with the United States for CVP water. 

Nelson Dec. ¶ 2. Furthermore, Authority operates and maintains

several CVP facilities, making it subject to ESA permit

requirements that allow for civil and criminal prosecutions for

unauthorized "taking" of protected species. 16 U.S.C.

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 6 of 11
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 7

§ 1540(a),(b). Farm Bureau has contractual rights to both CVP

and SWP water. Southwick Dec. ¶ 5. SWC's members hold

contracts giving them rights to SWP water. Thus, all Applicants

have legal interests in the CVP and SWP waters coordinated by

the OCAP. Applicants' interests all concern continued supplies

of water, and all Applicants seek to maintain the validity of

the OCAPBO. Plaintiffs do not contest the timeliness of

Applicants’ motion or the significance of Applicants’ legal

interests. The Court concludes that Applicants’ motions to

intervene are timely and that Applicants' interests are legally

cognizable.

B. Adequacy of Representation

Plaintiffs do not contend that Defendants will adequately

represent Applicants’ interests. Instead, Plaintiffs contend

that one Applicant will adequately represent the interests of

all, and urge the Court to grant only Authority’s motion, as the

first submitted. Rule 24(a)(2) excepts intervention if the

applicant’s interest is adequately represented by “existing

parties.” The Court has discretion to rule on motions to

intervene in the order it sees fit. Once an applicant has been

allowed to intervene, it becomes an existing party. The Court

may then consider whether the interests of other proposed

intervenors will be adequately represented by the first.

In determining adequacy of representation, the Court must

decide if an existing party will certainly make all of the

applicant’s arguments, and is able and willing do so, and if the

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 7 of 11
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 8

applicant will add any “necessary elements” that would not

otherwise be added. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086

(9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). However, if an applicant

and any existing party have the same goal, a "presumption of

adequacy of representation arises." Id. at 1087 (citations

omitted). If an applicant's interest is the same as that of

another intervenor, the applicant must then make a "compelling"

demonstration to overcome the presumption. Id. Different trial

strategies are not sufficient to justify intervention. Id.

Furthermore, the Court may “take into account the cumulative

effect of the representation of all existing parties.” 

California v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 779

(9th Cir. 1986). 

As stated above, Applicants share similar interests and have

the same ultimate objective of maintaining the validity of the

OCAPBO so as not to jeopardize present levels of water supply. 

Authority represents the contractual interests of those supplied

with water through CVP and its own regulatory interest with

regard to the CVP facilities it maintains and operates. Farm

Bureau represents the interests of those supplied with water

through the SWP, as well as those supplied through the CVP. 

Authority represents governmental interests in providing water

to California citizens while Farm Bureau represents individual

consumers. The Court therefore grants Authority and Farm

Bureau's motions to intervene as a matter of right. 

The central issue of this case is the validity of the OCAPBO

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 8 of 11
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 9

and its analysis with regard to the delta smelt. The amounts of

water received by each Applicant, how that water is used and

where it comes from are not at issue in this case. Even if they

were, Authority will represent the interests of CVP water users,

and Farm Bureau will represent the interests of SWP water users. 

Authority will represent public water agencies’ interests and

Farm Bureau will represent individual consumers’ interests. SWC

and Authority share counsel. SWC's interests as a public agency

and user of SWP water are thus adequately represented by

existing parties. The fact that SWC and Farm Bureau are on

opposing sides in independent litigation concerning the

Environmental Water Account (EWA) and its possible impact on the

distribution of SWP water in the OCAP is inapposite because the

EWA and distribution of SWP water are not at issue here. 

Therefore, SWC may not intervene as of right. However, SWC

further moves for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).

II. Permissive Intervention Under Rule 24(b)(2)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2), the Court

may permit intervention if the applicant presents a claim or

defense that has a question of law or fact in common with the

main action. An applicant seeking “permissive intervention must

prove that it meets three threshold requirements: (1) it shares

a common question of law or fact with the main action; (2) its

motion is timely; and (3) the court has an independent basis for

jurisdiction over the applicant's claims.” Donnelly v.

Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Northwest

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 9 of 11
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 10

Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir.

1996)). However, satisfaction of this requirement “does not

automatically entitle an applicant to intervene.” Venegas v.

Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1989). A court must also

“consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or

prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). In addressing this

question, a court may consider (1) whether undue delay or

prejudice to existing parties will result from the intervention,

(2) whether the applicants’ interests are adequately represented

by existing parties and (3) the interests of judicial economy. 

Venegas, 867 F.2d at 530-31. 

SWC shares a common question of law with regard to the

validity of the OCAPBO with all other parties. As discussed

above, its motion is timely and this Court has jurisdiction over

its claims. Intervention by SWC would not necessarily delay or

prejudice existing parties, because the case at issue is in the

early stages of proceedings. However, as determined above,

SWC's interests will be adequately represented by Authority and

Farm Bureau. In the interests of judicial economy, SWC’s motion

for permissive intervention is denied.

Applicants Authority and Farm Bureau will be required to

coordinate the filing of all papers with Defendants. The Court

will address this issue at the case management conference.

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 10 of 11
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 11

CONCLUSION

Because Authority and Farm Bureau have shown that they have

protected interests that may be impaired by resolution of Plaintiffs’

claims, the Court concludes that they may intervene as of right in th

action. Because SWC’s interests will be adequately represented

by Authority and Farm Bureau, the Court concludes SWC may not

intervene either as of right or permissively in this action. 

For the foregoing reasons, Authority and Farm Bureau's motions

to intervene are GRANTED (Docket Nos. 5, 19). SWC's motion to

intervene is DENIED (Docket No. 27). Applicants’ requests for

judicial notice are GRANTED (Docket Nos. 8, 30, 28). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/13/05 /s/ CLAUDIA WILKEN 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00690-CW Document 45 Filed 06/13/05 Page 11 of 11