Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-30/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 

CORPORATION

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 {00204024; 2}

 ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NEPA ISSUES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION 

THE DELTA SMELT CASES 

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 

WIDLIFE SERVICE et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv480) 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND 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) 

1:09-cv-00407-OWW-GSA 

1:09-cv-00422-OWW-GSA 

1:09-cv-00631-OWW-GSA 

1:09-cv-00892-OWW-GSA 

PARTIALLY CONSOLIDATED WITH: 

1:09-cv-00480-OWW-GSA 

 

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON NEPA ISSUES 

Date: October 2, 2009 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 3 

Judge: Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 457 Filed 12/09/09 Page 1 of 3
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00204024; 2} - 1 - 

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NEPA ISSUES 

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 and Westlands Water District (“San Luis Plaintiffs”), Plaintiff State Water 

Contractors, and Plaintiff Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”) on the 

one hand, and Defendant-Intervenors The Bay Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council 

on the other, came on regularly for hearing on October 2, 2009. San Luis Plaintiffs were 

represented by Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard by Daniel J. O'Hanlon, Esq., and 

Diepenbrock Harrison, by Eileen M. Diepenbrock, Esq. State Water Contractors was 

represented by Best, Best & Krieger, by Gregory K. Wilkinson, Esq. MWD was represented by 

Morrison & Foerster, by Christopher J. Carr, Esq. Federal Defendants, including the Secretary 

of the Interior Kenneth Lee Salazar, the United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (“FWS”), Acting director of the USFWS Rowan Gould, Regional Director of 

USFWS Ren Lohoefenor, United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”), Acting 

Commissioner of Reclamation J. William McDonald, and Regional Director Donald Glaser were 

represented by William J. Shapiro, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, and James A. 

Maysonett, Esq., Trial Attorney, Wildlife and Marine Resources Section, U.S. Department of 

Justice. Defendant-Intervenors The Bay Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council were 

represented by Earthjustice, Trent W. Orr, Esq., and Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Katherine Poole, Esq. 

The cross-motions for summary judgment at issue relate to the December 15, 2008, 

biological opinion regarding the effects of the proposed operations of the federal Central Valley 

Project and State Water Project on the delta smelt and its critical habitat issued by FWS (“2008 

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 Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion for Summary Judgment on 

Early Disposition Claims (“Defendant-Intervenors’ NEPA MSJ”). The Court also has fully 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 457 Filed 12/09/09 Page 2 of 3
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

{00204024; 2} - 2 - 

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NEPA ISSUES 

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 

October 2, 2009, and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing. The 

Court subsequently solicited supplemental briefings from the parties and the Court has also fully 

considered those briefs. 

On November 13, 2009, the Court filed its “Memorandum Decision Re Cross-Motions 

for Summary Judgment on NEPA Issues” (“Memorandum Decision”; Doc. 399). The November 

13, 2009, Memorandum Decision constitutes the statement of reasons for the Court’s ruling. 

Accordingly, and as stated more fully in its November 13, 2009, Memorandum Decision, 

the Court now enters the following order: 

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

claim against the United States Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”) and Secretary of the 

Interior, Kenneth Lee Salazar, that Reclamation violated NEPA by failing to perform any NEPA 

analysis prior to provisionally adopting and implementing the 2008 BiOp and its reasonable and 

prudent alternative. 

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

Dated: _December2, 2009 

__/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER__________

HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 457 Filed 12/09/09 Page 3 of 3