Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-19/pdf.json

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

---

DIEPENBROCK

HARRISON 

A PROFESSIONAL

CORPORAT ION

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 

{00222075; 1} -1-

Order Granting and Denying Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on NEPA 

COUNSEL IDENTIFICATION AT END

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES CASE NOS.

1:09-cv-1053-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1090-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1378-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1520-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-2452-OWW-DLB 

1:09-cv-1625-OWW-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 

NEPA ISSUES 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. GARY F. LOCKE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1053) 

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v. 

NOAA, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1090) 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

GARY F. LOCKE, et al. 

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1378) 

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1520) 

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-2452) 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. NMFS, et al. 

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1625) 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 288 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 4
DIEPENBROCK

HARRISON 

A PROFESSIONAL

CORPORAT ION

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 

{00222075; 1} -2-

Order Granting and Denying Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on NEPA 

ORDER

The cross-motions for summary judgment on National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”; 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.) issues filed by Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water 

Authority, Westlands Water District, State Water Contractors, Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California, Kern County Water Agency, Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, Oakdale 

Irrigation District, South San Joaquin Irrigation District, and Stockton East Water District 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on the one hand, and Defendant-Intervenors Pacific Coast Federation 

of Fishermen’s Associations/Institute for Fisheries Resources, The Bay Institute, California Trout, 

Friends of the River, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern California Council of the 

Federation of Fly Fishers, San Francisco Baykeeper, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, and 

the Winnemem Wintu Tribe on the other, came on regularly for hearing on February 9, 2010. 

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District were represented by 

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard by Daniel J. O’Hanlon, Esq. Plaintiff Westlands 

Water District also was represented by Thomas W. Birmingham. State Water Contractors were 

represented by Best, Best & Krieger, by Gregory K. Wilkinson, Esq. Metropolitan Water District 

of Southern California was represented by Morrison & Foerster, by Christopher J. Carr, Esq. 

Kern County Water Agency and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta were represented by Nossaman 

LLP, by Paul Weiland Esq. Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District 

were represented by O’Laughlin & Paris LLP, by William C. Paris, Esq. Stockton East Water 

District was represented by Herum Crabtree by Jennifer L. Spaletta, Esq. Federal Defendants, 

including the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, Gary F. Locke, the United 

States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

(“NOAA”) National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS), Acting Assistant Administrator James 

W. Balsiger, Administrator for the Southwest Region Rodney R. McInnis, the United States 

Department of the Interior, Untied States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”), Commissioner 

of Reclamation Michael L. Connor, and Donald R. Glaser, as Director of Reclamation, MidPacific Region were represented by Bridget Kennedy McNeil, Trial Attorney, Wildlife and 

Marine Section, and William J. Shapiro, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, U.S. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 288 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 4
DIEPENBROCK

HARRISON 

A PROFESSIONAL

CORPORAT ION

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 

{00222075; 1} -3-

Order Granting and Denying Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on NEPA 

Department of Justice. Defendant-Intervenors California Trout, Friends of the River, Northern 

California Council of the Federation of Fishermen’s Associations/Institute for Fisheries 

Resources, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, San Francisco Baykeeper, The Bay Institute, 

and Winnemen Wintu Tribe were represented by Earthjustice, by Erin M. Tobin and Michael R. 

Sherwood. Defendant-Intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council was represented by 

Katherine S. Poole and Doug A. Obegi, Natural Resources Defense Council. 

The cross-motions for summary judgment at issue relate to the June 4, 2009 biological 

opinion issued by the NMFS regarding the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project 

and State Water Project (“2009 NMFS BiOp”). The Court has fully considered the briefs and 

evidence filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication on NEPA Issues 

(“Plaintiffs’ NEPA MSJ”), as well as the briefs and evidence filed in support of DefendantIntervenors’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ NEPA Claims against NMFS 

(“Defendant-Intervenors’ NEPA MSJ”). The Court also has fully considered the briefs and 

evidence filed in opposition to these motions filed by Plaintiffs, Federal Defendants, and 

Defendant-Intervenors. The Court heard oral argument on the motions on February 9, 2010, and 

took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing. The Court additionally, 

solicited and received supplemental briefings from the parties, and the Court has also fully 

considered those briefs. 

On March 5, 2010, the Court filed its “Memorandum Decision Re Cross-Motions for 

Summary Judgment on NEPA Issues” (“Memorandum Decision”; Doc. 266). The March 5, 

2010, Memorandum Decision constitutes the statement of reasons for the Court’s ruling. 

Accordingly, and as stated more fully in its March 5, 2010, Memorandum Decision, the 

Court now enters the following order: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their 

claim against Federal Defendants that the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (“Reclamation”) 

provisional adoption and NMFS’ and Reclamation’s implementation of the 2009 NMFS BiOp 

and its RPA without preparing any NEPA documentation violated NEPA. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 288 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 4
DIEPENBROCK

HARRISON 

A PROFESSIONAL

CORPORAT ION

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 

{00222075; 1} -4-

Order Granting and Denying Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on NEPA 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ NEPA MSJ is hereby GRANTED in part. 

Dated: _March 17, 2010 /s/ OLIVERW. WANGER___________ 

HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 288 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 4