Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00245/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00245-33/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pacific Coast Federation of

Fishermen’s Associations,

Institute for Fisheries Resources,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Carlos M. Gutierrez, in his

official capacity as Secretary of

Commerce, et al.,

Defendants,

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water

Authority, et al.,

Defendant-Intervenors.

1:06-CV-00245 OWW GSA

MEMORANDUM DECISION

CONDITIONALLY GRANTING

OAKDALE IRRIGATION

DISTRICT, ET AL.’S, MOTION

TO INTERVENE.

I. INTRODUCTION

A memorandum decision and order, issued April 16, 2008 as

amended May 20, 2008, granted in part and denied in part

Plaintiffs’ Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) challenges to the 2004

biological opinion (“BiOp”) issued by the National Marine

Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) on the effects of coordinated

operation of two of California’s largest water projects, the 

federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and the State Water

Project (“SWP”), on the endangered Sacramento River winter-run

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 1 of 20
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

Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook

salmon, and the threatened Central Valley steelhead. (See Doc.

256.) Before the court for decision is a motion to intervene

filed by Oakdale Irrigation District (“OID”), South San Joaquin

Irrigation District (“SSJID”), and Stockton East Water District

(“SEWD”) (collectively, “Applicants”). Applicants each have

water rights to the surface flows of the Stanislaus River. They

seek to intervene in ongoing remedies proceedings in this case

because Plaintiffs have requested injunctive relief in the form

of modified temperature criteria on the Stanislaus, ostensibly to

benefit the steelhead populations there. (Doc. 377, filed Aug.

6, 2008.) Plaintiffs oppose intervention. (Doc. 386, filed Aug.

20, 2008.) Federal Defendants, State Defendants, and DefendantIntervenors do not oppose. (Doc. 377 at 2 n.1; Doc. 387, filed

Aug. 26, 2008.) 

 

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History.

Shortly after summary judgment was entered, Plaintiffs moved

for injunctive relief. The parties were directed to submit

briefs and evidence on whether interim remedies are necessary to

protect the species from jeopardy and the species’ critical

habitat from adverse modification or destruction until such time

as the new BiOP is released. (See Doc. 233, filed Apr. 29,

2008.) While the briefing was ongoing, Plaintiffs made a motion

for emergency injunctive relief, requesting the implementation of

a number of interim remedies. They recommended that four

remedies be implemented “immediately” and seven additional

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 2 of 20
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

remedies be implemented pending the March 2009 completion of the

new BiOp. (Doc. 280, filed May 27, 2008.) An evidentiary

hearing on both the need for interim remedies and Plaintiffs’

request for injunctive relief commenced June 6, 2008 and

concluded July 3, 2008. The hearing focused on the status of the

species, whether Project operations would result in jeopardy

before the new BiOp is issued, and on the four “immediate”

remedies, which concerned releases from Shasta and Whiskeytown

Dam on the upper Sacramento River and Clear Creek, respectively,

and the timing of opening of Red Bluff Diversion Dam. Testimony

on the status of the species and the impacts of Project

operations on the three species was received from three expert

fisheries biologists, Bruce Oppenheim, employed by NMFS, Dr.

Christina Swanson of the Bay Institute, and Dr. Charles Hanson. 

Additional testimony was provided by Ronald Milligan, the

Operations Manager of the CVP, and by John Leahigh, Chief of the

Project Operations Planning Branch for the SWP, both of whom are

qualified experts in water project operations. Finally, Michael

Urkov, who testified for Defendant-Intervenor Tehama Colusa Canal

Authority, et al., (“TCCA”), was qualified as an expert regarding

fish passage and operations at RBDD. Some evidence was received

concerning Plaintiffs’ seven additional proposed remedies, which

included remedies on the Feather, American, and Stanislaus

Rivers, and in the Delta. 

On July 18, 2008, the district court entered findings of

fact and conclusions of law regarding the existence of

irreparable harm during the interim period. With respect to the

Stanislaus, the district court found: 

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 3 of 20
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

164. The Stanislaus River supports a small population

of steelhead. (DI B at ¶61.) The 2004 BiOp requires

The Bureau to meet a 65EF temperature compliance point

at Orange Blossom Road through the summer and fall to

protect oversummering juvenile steelhead. (6/12 Tr.

56:5-8.) The Bureau’s planned operations between now

and March 2009 will meet this temperature requirement. 

(6/12 Tr. 56:17-18.) 

165. There are no temperature requirements on the

Stansislaus River for the steelhead spawning period of

December to March. (6/12 Tr. 59:19-60:6.) However,

winter water temperatures naturally occurring in the

Stanislaus River are generally cool enough for

steelhead spawning. (6/12 Tr. 60:6-7.) In Mr.

Oppenheim’s years of experience and opinion, the

temperatures from December to February have never risen

high enough to be of concern. (6/12 Tr. 60: 9-14.)

166. The Bureau’s proposed operations on the Stanislaus

River predict flows below 150 cfs in January, February,

and March. (6/18 Tr. 22:18-21.) 150 cfs has been

identified as the “optimal” flow for juvenile steelhead

rearing. (6/11 Tr. 167:5-7.) Flows below this level

would result in a loss of rearing habitat that would be

“significant” to the small population of steelhead

rearing there. (6/11 167:21-168:6; 6/18 Tr. 23:10-16.) 

As a result of these operations, the Stanislaus River

steelhead population is expected to decline. (6/18 Tr.

21:9-12.) Losing this population, which is not

predicted to occur in the near future, but could become

more likely as a result of interim operations, “would

represent a serious adverse impact by not only reducing

the overall population abundance for the species, but

also by reducing the spatial distribution of the

species.” (6/18 Tr. 21:13-16.)

167. Dr. Hanson opined the proposed Stanislaus River

operations will benefit steelhead and relieve the

effects of limited reservoir storage and coldwater pool

volume. (DI B ¶105.)

168. Although the temperature compliance goals on the

Stanislaus will be met, Dr. Swanson opines that flows

below the optimal 150 cfs will reduce steelhead habitat

for spawning and rearing, (6/18 Tr. 22:4-23:16.),

reducing steelhead abundance in the Stanislaus River. 

Impacts to this small population could adversely impact

their spatial distribution, but the magnitude of any

such effects is unknown. The Federal Defendants’

evidence proves by a preponderance that even absent the

150cfs flow level in January through March 2009,

irreparable injury to steelhead on the Stanislaus is

unlikely.

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 4 of 20
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

5

B. The Applicants. 

1. OID and SSJID.

OID and SSJID jointly hold adjudicated, pre-1914 rights to

1816.6 cubic-feet per second (“cfs”) of the flow of the

Stanislaus River for diversion and use within their respective

boundaries. (O’Laughlin Decl. ¶3, Ex. A.) Additionally, OID and

SSJID have water rights for the diversion and use of water from

the Stanislaus River for the purpose of generating hydroelectric

power under permits and licenses issued by the California State

Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”). (Id. at ¶4, Ex. B.)

To effectuate the diversion, conveyance, and use of the

Stanislaus River water, OID and SSJID constructed Goodwin Dam in

1912. From there, each district constructed a joint main canal,

which connected to the two districts’ respective distribution and

conveyance systems. In 1925, OID and SSJID agreed to construct

Melones Dam and Reservoir, with a capacity of 112,500 acre-feet.

In 1938, OID and SSJID agreed to construct three additional dams

and reservoirs -- Donnells, Beardsely and Tulloch -- to provide

both a supplemental supply of delivered water to generate

hydroelectric power to provide the districts with an additional

source of revenue. (Id. at ¶5.)

 When, as part of the CVP, the United States began

construction of New Melones dam and reservoir, it utilized the

same location as the existing Melones dam and reservoir owned and

constructed by the districts. To address the inundation of old

Melones, as well as the impacts that New Melones dam and

reservoir would have on the districts’ exercise of their right to

divert and store water from the Stanislaus River, an agreement

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 5 of 20
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

was signed in 1972 between the districts and the United States.

(Id. at ¶6.) That agreement was superseded by an agreement

signed by the same parties in 1988 (“the 1988 Agreement”). (Id.

at ¶6; Ex. C.)

Pursuant to the 1988 Agreement, the United States shall

deliver at Goodwin Dam, for use by OID and SSJID, the inflow into

New Melones up to 600,000 acre-feet (“AF”). (Id. at Ex. C, p.1.)

If the inflow into New Melones is less than 600,000 AF, then the

United States will deliver to Goodwin Dam all inflow plus

one-third of the difference between inflows and 600,000 AF. 

(Id.) Further, the 1988 Agreement permits the districts to store

in New Melones reservoir up to 200,000 AF for use in a subsequent

water year. However, if the United States must release water

from New Melones for flood control purposes, any stored water

credited to the districts is the first water released. (Id. at

p. 2.)

2. SEWD.

SEWD provides water for irrigation, domestic, municipal and

industrial purposes to its customers in San Joaquin County.

(Harrigfeld Decl. at p.2.) In 1983, SEWD signed an agreement

with the United States for annual water deliveries from New

Melones of 75,000 AF. (Id. at ¶3.) The contract required SEWD

to “construct and install, without cost or expense to the United

States, facilities required by the Contractor to take and convey

the water from the point or points of delivery.” (Harrigfeld

Decl. ¶3, Ex A, p.13 at ¶7(b).) 

In performance of this contractual requirement, SEWD

designed, constructed, and financed the New Melones Conveyance

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 6 of 20
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

System at a total cost in excess of $65 million, and other

facilities. The New Melones Conveyance System consists of the

purchase of an undivided one-third interest in Goodwin Dam, a

diversion structure at Goodwin Dam, the 3.55 mile long Goodwin

Tunnel, the Upper Farmington Canal, Improvements to Shirley,

Hoods and Rock Creeks for conveyance, the Lower Farmington Canal,

a new 2.5 mile-long, 78-inch diameter concrete pipeline and

improvements to the existing SEWD water treatment plant. 

(Harrigfeld Decl. ¶4.) The Goodwin Tunnel and related facilities

were designed and constructed for the sole purpose of conveying

New Melones water to SEWD, pursuant to its contract of December

19, 1983. (Harrigfeld Decl. ¶4.)

Although construction was completed in 1994, and SEWD was

ready to take delivery of water from New Melones pursuant to its

contract, the United States did not make any water available in

1993 and 1994, citing new obligations contained in the Central

Valley Project Improvement Act. (Harrigfeld Decl. ¶5.) While

litigation over this is on-going, SEWD has maintained its

contract with the United States and has been receiving water from

New Melones. (Harrigfeld Decl. ¶5.)

3. Interim Plan of Operations.

The Interim Plan of Operations (“IOP”) is a plan the United

States uses to guide operations at New Melones Dam and Reservoir.

The IOP was developed in 1997 as part of a stakeholder effort to

develop a long-term plan of operation for New Melones.

(O’Laughlin Decl. ¶7.) 

Under the IOP, the determination of operating objectives is

based upon February end of month storage plus March through

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 7 of 20
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

September forecast of inflow into New Melones reservoir. (Id. at

¶8; Ex. D, p. 2.) The quantity of water allocated to each

operating objective -- fishery, Vernalis water quality, Bay-Delta

and CVP contractors -- is based upon ranges. Thus, when inflow

plus storage ranges from 1.4 MAF to 2 MAF, the amount released

for fishery purposes ranges from 98TAF to 125 TAF, the amount

released for Vernalis water quality ranges from 70 TAF to 80 TAF,

and there is no water released for either Bay-Delta or CVP

contractors. When New Melones inflow plus storage ranges from 2

MAF to 2.5 MAF, CVP contractors are allocated between 0 TAF and

59 TAF. Finally, under the IOP guidelines, the Bay-Delta does

not get an allocation until storage plus inflow is at least 2.5

MAF, while CVP contractors receive a full allocation when storage

plus inflow is 2.5 MAF. (Id. Ex. D, p. 2.) 

III. DISCUSSION

Applicants move to intervene as of right or, in the

alternative, to permissively intervene. 

A. Intervention as of Right.

1. Legal Standard.

Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24. To intervene as a matter of right under Rule 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. 1993). 

The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 24(a) liberally, in favor of

intervention, and requires a district court to “take all wellCase 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 8 of 20
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

pleaded, non-conclusory 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 four part test is used to evaluate a motion for intervention of

right: 

(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

represented by the parties to the action. 

Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1493.

2. Timeliness.

In assessing timeliness, courts in the Ninth Circuit must

consider: (1) the current stage of the proceedings; (2) whether

the existing parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for

any delay in moving to intervene. League of United Latin Am.

Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). (Doc.

19.) Any substantial dely weighs heavily against intervention.” 

Id.

a. Stage of the Proceedings/ Reason for Delay in

Moving to Intervene. 

Applicants seek to intervene at a relatively late stage in

this litigation, after cross-motions for summary judgement have

bene decided and in the middle of ongoing remedies proceedings,

after significant briefing and evidence was received on remedies

issues. The fact that the district court and the existing

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 9 of 20
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

parties have “substantively [] and substantially [] engaged in

the issues” weighs against Applicants’ intervention. Wilson, 131

F.3d at 1303. 

However, Applicants point out that the Ninth Circuit has

held that the key date for assessing the timeliness of a motion

to intervene is the date that the applicant should have been

aware that its interests would no longer be adequately

represented by one of the existing parties. Smith v. Marsh, 194

F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Applicants assert that they first became aware that the

United States was not adequately protecting their interests

immediately following this Court's July 18, 2008 Order,

explaining:

Proposed Intervenor’s counsel became aware of the

issuance and substance of the Court’s Order by reading

press reports on or about July 19, 2008. (O’Laughlin

Decl, ¶ 9; Harrigfeld Decl., ¶ 6). Thereafter, counsel

obtained the Order from PACER and was surprised to find

(1) that the Court had taken evidence and made findings

regarding flow and temperature on the Stanislaus River

(Docket #367, ¶164-168), and (2) that Plaintiffs were

requesting the opportunity to present additional

information on several proposed remedies, including

specific temperature requirements for the Stanislaus

River between Goodwin Dam and Orange Blossom Bridge.

(Docket #367, ¶ 238). (O’Laughlin Decl., ¶ 9).

Counsel for Proposed Intervenors obtained and reviewed

the materials from PACER dealing with the Plaintiffs’

proposed temperature requirements on the Stanislaus

River, and were dismayed to see that the United States

made virtually no effort to address or rebut the

suggested temperature requirements. (Declaration of

Bruce F. Oppenheim [“Oppenheim Decl.”], Docket # 301-

3, ¶ 25)(O’Laughlin Decl., ¶ 10). Despite the fact that

Plaintiffs suggested very specific temperature criteria

for each time of the year, Mr. Oppenheim devoted only a

single paragraph in response which was extremely

general in nature. (Docket #301-3, ¶ 25). Discovering

that the United States was not adequately addressing

the Plaintiffs’ temperature recommendations, and not

adequately representing their interests, counsel for

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 10 of 20
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

SEWD appeared at the July 23, 2008 Scheduling

Conference and asked for permission to intervene.

(Docket # 370, p. 2; Harrigfeld Decl., ¶ 7). Counsel

for Plaintiffs orally stated that Plaintiffs would not

stipulate to intervention by SEWD, and the Court

thereon gave SEWD until August 6, 2008 to file a motion

seeking intervention.

The following day, counsel for OID contacted Mr. Ron

Milligan of the United States Bureau of Reclamation by

telephone to discuss the nature, extent and detail of

evidence and information that the United States would

provide if the Court were to permit the submission of

additional evidence. (O’Laughlin Decl., ¶ 11). During

the call, Mr. O’Laughlin asked if the United States

would be submitting evidence from Avry Dotan of AD

Consultants, Doug Demko or Andrea Fuller of FishBIO, or

Daniel B. Steiner Consulting Engineer, each of whom is

an acknowledged expert regarding hydrology, fishery

biology and hydrologic and temperature modeling on the

Stanislaus River. Mr. Milligan indicated that the

United States would not be using such witnesses.

(O’Laughlin Decl., ¶ 11). Mr. O’Laughlin asked if he

could assist the United States by obtaining

declarations or other information from these witnesses

that the United States could submit. Mr. Milligan

indicated that for the United States to use such

witnesses, the United States would need approval from

the Justice Department, the Department of the Interior,

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United

States Bureau of Reclamation and perhaps other

interested agencies. (O’Laughlin Decl., ¶ 11). Mr.

Milligan thereon suggested that if OID wanted the

information and evidence of Mssrs. Dotan, Steiner and

Demko to be submitted, OID should seek to intervene.

(O’Laughlin Decl., ¶ 11).

At the conclusion of his call with Mr. Milligan, Mr.

O’Laughlin immediately contacted counsel for SEWD and

SSJID by telephone and e-mail, informing them of Mr.

Milligan’s comments and recommending that the three

parties jointly seek to intervene. (O’Laughlin Decl., ¶

12; Harrigfeld Decl., ¶ 8). The parties agreed, and on

the following day, July 25, 2008, Proposed Intervenors

sent out a letter to all parties seeking permission to

intervene. (O’Laughlin Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. E).

(Doc. 377 at 7-10.)

Plaintiffs argue that Applicants’ “claim that it only

recently realized that it should intervene to protect its own

interests is difficult to reconcile with the fact that most of

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 11 of 20
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

12

the existing Defendant-Intervenors sought to intervene at a very

early stage in this litigation.” (Doc. 386 at 7.) Moreover,

Plaintiffs note that Applicants’ admit that they were “generally

aware of the litigation.” (Id. (citing Doc. 377 at 8 n.3).) 

But, given the nature of the initial claims in this case,

which focused on the lawfulness of a global document –- the OCAP

BiOp -– and the affects of the OCAP on salmonid species that are

present throughout the Delta watershed, Applicants had no reason

to believe until recently that issues specifically relating to

the method and timing of deliveries on the Stanislaus River and

New Melones operations would be placed directly at issue. 

b. Prejudice to Existing Parties.

The Ninth Circuit considers prejudice to be “perhaps the

most important factor in determining timeliness of a motion to

intervene as of right.” Peterol Stops Nw. v. Cont’l Oil Co., 647

F.2d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs assert that because

“[a]s a general rule, intervenors are permitted to litigate fully

once admitted to a lawsuit,” that Applicants’ admission will

prolong this litigation. Applicants expressed their intention to

call several expert witnesses, perhaps as many as three,

regarding hydrology, fisheries biology, and the hydrology and

temperature modeling on the Stanislaus. 

Plaintiffs’ concerns about the progress of this litigation

are valid. However, the district court has the discretion to

place conditions upon intervention, and has done so on several

occasions in this and related cases. Applicants’ participation

can be appropriately constrained so that it will not result in

additional delay. Applicants’ will not be permitted to

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 12 of 20
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

13

relitigate issues or to duplicate briefing and/or testimony going

forward. Moreover, Applicants will be limited to one expert

witness, not three as they have proposed. Their participation

will be strictly limited to Stanislaus River issues.

3. Significant Protectable Interests.

To demonstrate a “significantly protectable interest,” “a

prospective intervenor must establish that (1) the interest

asserted is protectable under some law, and (2) there is a

relationship between the legally protected interest and the

claims at issue.” Id. It is undisputed that altering the

temperature controls on the Stanislaus river will directly affect

and has potential to injure Applicants’s interests. 

4. Impairment of Interests.

Finally, disposition of this action may, as a practical

matter, impair or impede Applicants’ abilities to protect their

interests. This requirement demands only a showing that the

applicant “would be substantially affected in a practical sense

by the determination made in an action.” Southwest Ctr. for

Biodiversity, 268 F.3d at 822. It is undisputed that, should an

order issue requiring modifications to the operation of New

Melones Dam, Applicants’ interests would be significantly

impaired or impeded. 

5. Existing Parties’ Ability to Represent Applicants’

Interests.

The remaining issue is whether Applicant’s interests are

adequately protected by other defendants or defendantintervenors. In assessing the adequacy of representation, the

Ninth Circuit looks at three factors: 

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 13 of 20
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

14

(1) whether the existing parties will undoubtedly make

all of the applicant’s arguments;

(2) whether the existing parties are capable of and

willing to make the applicant’s arguments; and

(3) whether the applicant offers a necessary element

to the proceedings that otherwise would be

neglected. 

Id. at 823. “[T]he requirement of inadequacy of representation

is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of its

interests may be inadequate....[T]he burden of making this

showing is minimal.” Sagebrush Rebellion Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d

525, 528 (9th Cir. 1983). 

a. Federal Defendants’ Ability to

Represent Applicants.

Responsible government agencies are presumed to adequately

represent their citizens. See Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949,

957 (9th Cir. 2006). However, this presumption may be “rebutted

by if Applicants and Federal Defendants “do not have

sufficiently congruent interests.” Southwest Center for

Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 823 (9th Cir. 2001).

Applicants correctly point out that Federal Defendants’

interests are much broader than their own, including interests

in the preservation of threatened and endangered species. 

Moreover, such interests are often in conflict, and do not

include protection of Applicants’ water rights. Id. (finding

that Fish and Wildlife Service could not be expected to protect

proposed intervenor’s private interests); see also National Farm

Lines v. I.C.C., 564 F.2d 381, 384 (10th Cir. 1977) (“We have

here...the familiar situation in which the governmental agency

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 14 of 20
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

Applicants also argue that they have “different short- 1

term and long-term perspective[s] on the proposed remedy than

does the United States.” (Id. at 17.) In support of this

assertion, Applicants point to Mr. Oppenheim’s declaration, in

15

is seeking to protect not only the interest of the public but

also the private interest of the petitioners in intervention, a

task which is on its face impossible. The cases correctly hold

that this kind of a conflict satisfies the minimal burden of

showing inadequacy of representation.”).

Applicants maintain that Federal Defendants will not

adequately represent their interests. Specifically, Applicants

emphasize that “Mr. Milligan has already informed counsel for

OID that the United States will not be presenting a robust

rebuttal to Plaintiffs’ proposed temperature criteria, but will

likely rely again upon the information and expertise of Mr.

Oppenheim. (O’Laughlin Decl. ¶11.)” (Doc. 377 at 16.) 

Applicants also argue that the witnesses who testified at the

remedies hearing in June and July are, relatively speaking,

generalists, lacking specific knowledge or expertise of the

temperature requirements of steelhead found in the Stanislaus

River. (See Oppenheim Decl., Doc. 250-1, ¶ 1). Dr. Swanson

noted, for example, that steelhead egg temperature tolerance

varies with different Steelhead populations. (See Swanson

Decl., Doc. 277, Table 1.) Applicants are prepared to offer

expert witnesses who can discuss the temperature requirements of

steelhead located in the Stanislaus River, based on, among other

things, first-hand knowledge of the Stanislaus River and its

fishery. (Doc. 377 at 16.)1

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 15 of 20
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

which he discussed the possibility that additional releases to

meet the Plaintiffs’ proposed temperature criteria would impact

the United States’ ability to protect fall-run Chinook salmon

with releases later in the year. (Oppenheim Decl., Doc. 301-3,

¶25.) Applicants expressed concern that “Mr. Oppenheim did not

address the impacts of such actions on water right holders, such

as the Proposed Intervenors,” while “Mr. Milligan, who likewise

devoted only a single paragraph in his declaration to the

proposed Stanislaus River temperature criteria, made only a

general reference to project purposes ‘including fishery

purposes.’ There was no reference to the water rights of any of

the Proposed Intervenors.” (Doc. 377 at 17.) But, Applicants

ignore or perhaps were unaware of the fact that, with a few

exceptions not relevant to the Stanislaus, the evidence presented

during the remedies proceedings to date was to be strictly

limited to biological status of the species and the biological

impacts of project operations. 

16

Applicants are also concerned that Plaintiffs’ temperature

criteria, if approved by the Court, will become a permanent

feature of temperature management on the Stanislaus, a concern

they believe is not shared by the Federal Defendants. 

Temperature controls on the Stanislaus are already the subject

of an on-going proceeding before the SWRCB to declare the

Stanislaus River and others in the San Joaquin River Basin

“impaired” for temperature, a process that includes requests for

imposition of temperature criteria similar to that proposed by

Plaintiffs. Applicants have actively participated in that

process and are concerned that any factual finding by this court

regarding temperature criteria would impact the SWRCB Process. 

Plaintiffs respond in several ways. First, Plaintiffs

point out that representations made by Mr. Milligan do not

necessarily represent the position of the Federal Defendants,

suggesting that Applicants should have consulted with counsel

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 16 of 20
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

Plaintiffs correctly note that Federal Defendants did 2

provide some specific information related to the proposed remedy

on the Stanislaus River. (See, e.g., 6/10 Tr. 419; 6/11 Tr. 610-

612; 6/12 Tr. 720-21, 24; 7/1 Tr. 100-101, 124-25; 7/2 Tr. 86-

87.) Nevertheless, although this was certainly more than the

“virtually no effort” suggested by Applicants, a great deal more

will be needed before a decision can be made about implementation

of any specific remedy on the Stanislaus. Applicants aver that

their interests will not be protected by existing parties when

such evidence is presented. 

17

for the Federal Defendants instead. During the hearing on this

motion, counsel for Federal Defendants confirmed that it would

not be in the best interest of the Federal Defendants to present

all of the evidence suggested by Applicants.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Federal Defendants plan

to use different witnesses than suggested by Applicants is “a

mere difference in litigation strategy and does not amount to

inadequate representation.,” citing Wilson, 131 F.3d at 1306 for

the proposition that “[w]here a proposed intervenor has not

alleged any substantive disagreement between it and the existing

parties to the suit, and instead as vested its claim for

intervention entirely upon a disagreement over litigation

strategy or legal tactics, courst have been hesitant to accord

the applicant full-party status.” (Doc. 386 at 10.) However,

Applicants are not suggesting a mere difference in litigation

strategy. Rather, they assert that the witnesses proposed by

the Federal Defendants are incapable of conveying the

substantive information Applicants believe is necessary to

protect their interests.2

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 17 of 20
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

18

At the hearing, federal defendants asserted they were not

in a position to represent or protect the interests of the

proposed intervenors.

b. Existing Defendant-Intervenors’

Ability to Represent Applicants.

Plaintiffs argue that intervention as of right should be

denied because Applicants and the existing Defendant-Intervenors

all share the same interest in “receiving water from the Central

Valley Project and State Water Project.” (Doc. 386 at 11). 

Plaintiffs are not correct. Applicants OID and SSJID do not

have contracts to receive water from either the CVP or SWP.

Rather, they hold rights that pre-date and have been adjudicated

to be senior to those of the United States on the Stanislaus

River. (See Doc. 378, ¶¶ 3, 5 & 6.) OID and SSJID signed an

agreement in 1988 with the United States addressing the impacts

that the construction of New Melones Dam and reservoir would

have on the exercise of their superior water rights, and their

rights under that 1988 agreement may be adversely affected by a

decision in this case. SEWD does have a contract to receive

water from the United States. However, that contract does not

entitle SEWD to water from the CVP as a whole, but rather only

from the New Melones Unit of the CVP. As with OID and SSJID,

SEWD does not have an interest in the either the SWP nor in the

CVP generally, but only in water of the Stanislaus River. 

While Applicants and existing Defendant-Intervenors have

similar interests generally, none of the existing

Defendant-Intervenors have the same, narrow interest in the

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 18 of 20
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

Counsel for Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, et al.,

3

the California Farm Bureau Federation, and Tehama Colusa Canal

Company, et al., informed Applicants that they did not intend to

submit any such information. (See Decl. of William C. Paris,

III, ¶¶ 3-5.) Counsel for San Luis and Delta Mendota Water

Authority and Westlands Water District was not sure if it would

submit anything about the Stanislaus River, but did state that

any submission would be from the perspective of CVP export

contractors and would not represent the interests of Applicants. 

(Id. ¶6.) No defendant-intervenor was willing to present

evidence through Applicants’ expert witnesses. 

19

Stanislaus River as do Applicants. Moreover, Applicants have a

unique perspective on the remedies proposed by Plaintiffs. Just

as only Defendant-Intervenor Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, et

al., had an acute interest in Red Bluff Diversion Dam, so too

only Applicants can be expected to represent their interests in

their contracts with the Bureau for Stanislaus River water.

Plaintiffs point out that Dr. Hanson, the expert witness

relied upon by existing Defendant Intervenors, does have some

expertise concerning the Stanislaus River. However, existing

Defendant Intervenors were not prepared to state whether Dr.

Hanson would be willing and/or able to cover the issues and

information of concern to Applicants. 

Applicants’ participation in this litigation will ensure

that the district court receives detailed information about the

Stanislaus River for purposes of considering Plaintiffs’

proposed temperature criteria and other remedies related to the

Stanislaus River. 

3

The interests of Applicants are sufficiently divergent from

those of the Federal Government and the Defendant-Intervenors to

justify intervention as of right.

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 19 of 20
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

20

IV. CONCLUSION

Applicants satisfy all of the requirements for intervention

as a matter of right. It is not necessary to address

Applicants’ alternative request for permissive intervention. If

and only if issues related to the Stanislaus should arise in

subsequent remedies proceedings, Applicants’ motion to intervene

as a matter of right is GRANTED, conditioned upon strictly

limiting their participation to Stanislaus River-New Melones

issues, about which they can provide unique information and/or

arguments, and further conditioned on combined briefing, page

limitations, and other measures to avoid duplication.

Applicants’ are restricted to only one expert witness in any

subsequent evidentiary proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

b2e55c UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 397 Filed 09/02/08 Page 20 of 20