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

RVPUB\GWILKINSON\712297.1 

STIPULATION FOR INTERVENTION BY THE 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

GREGORY K. WILKINSON, Bar No. 054809 

STEVEN M. ANDERSON, Bar No. 186700 

JASON M. ACKERMAN, Bar No. 219940 

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 

3750 University Avenue 

P.O. Box 1028 

Riverside, California 92502 

Telephone: (951) 686-1450 

Telecopier: (951) 686-3083 

E-mail address: Gregory.Wilkinson@bbklaw.com

Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

FRESNO DIVISION 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF 

FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS/INSTITUTE 

FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES, THE BAY 

INSTITUTE, BAYKEEPER AND ITS 

DELTAKEEPER CHAPTER, CALIFORNIA 

TROUT, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE 

FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERS, and 

SACRAMENTO RIVER PRESERVATION 

TRUST, all non-profit organizations; and the 

WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, in his official capacity 

as Secretary of Commerce, WILLIAM T. 

HOGARTH, in his official capacity as Assistant 

Administrator Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, GALE A. NORTON, in her 

official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; and 

JOHN W. KEYS, in his official capacity as 

Commissioner, United States Bureau of 

Reclamation, 

Defendants, 

and Related Intervenors/Defendants. 

Case No. 1:06-CV-00245 OWW LJO 

Judge: Oliver W. Wanger 

Courtroom: 3 

STIPULATION FOR 

INTERVENTION BY THE 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 45 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 5
LA

W

OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

3750 UNIVERSITY A

VENUE

P.O. BOX 1028

RIVERSIDE, C

ALIFORNIA 92502

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 

RVPUB\GWILKINSON\712297.1 - 1 - 

STIPULATION FOR INTERVENTION BY THE 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

BACKGROUND 

On April 19, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its 

Memorandum Opinion in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Norton, Case 

No. 05-16581. That Opinion dealt with the effort of the State Water Contractors organization 

(‘State Contractors”) to intervene in litigation challenging the issuance of a biological opinion 

adopted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of addressing proposed 

changes in the operation of the State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project. Those 

changes were set forth in a so-called Operations Criteria and Plan developed by the United States 

Bureau of Reclamation in June 2004 (“2004 OCAP”). In its opinion, the Court of Appeals 

determined that the district court in NRDC v. Norton erred when it denied the intervention motion 

of the State Water Contractors after concluding the State Contractors’ interests were adequately 

represented by existing parties. According to the Court of Appeals, the State Contractors’ 

interests in the challenge to the biological opinion were “not adequately represented” by existing 

parties. Memorandum Opinion, page 3 Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court 

and concluded that “the Contractors should be allowed to intervene.” Id., page 4. 

The present case challenges a biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service with respect to the same 2004 OCAP. The State Contractors have filed a motion to 

intervene in the present case and opposition to the Motion by the Plaintiffs Pacific Coast 

Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) is due to be filed shortly. In view of 

the Opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. 

Norton, however, the Plaintiffs and the State Contractors believe the resources of the Court and 

the parties can best be conserved by entering into this Stipulation. 

On October 31, 2005, Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero allowed two other parties, the 

California Farm Bureau Federation, and San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority/Westlands 

Water District, to intervene as Intervenors Defendants with the conditions that “(1) the Intervenor 

Defendants shall be considered as one party for briefing purposes, and shall file one brief together 

on any issue before the Court, subject to further Order of the Court, and (2) Intervenor 

Defendants shall coordinate their filings with the Federal Defendants.” Neither of those parties 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 45 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 5
LA

W

OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

3750 UNIVERSITY A

VENUE

P.O. BOX 1028

RIVERSIDE, C

ALIFORNIA 92502

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 

RVPUB\GWILKINSON\712297.1 - 2 - 

STIPULATION FOR INTERVENTION BY THE 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

holds a contract for the delivery of State Water Project water and neither asserts that it has the 

same interest as the State Contractors in defending the South Delta Improvement Program 

proposed by the California Department of Water Resources. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that: (1) the State Contractors shall be 

permitted to intervene as a defendant in this matter pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure; (2) to promote the efficient conduct of the proceedings herein, the State 

Contractors may be required to coordinate briefing or share oral argument with the existing 

parties; and (3) the State Contractors agree to abide by any additional briefing restrictions or page 

limitations imposed by the Court at the May 26, 2006 scheduling conference or otherwise. 

Dated: ________________, 2006 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 

By: ___/s/ Gregory K. Wilkinson__________

 GREGORY K. WILKINSON 

STEVEN M. ANDERSON 

JASON M. ACKERMAN 

Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 45 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 5
LA

W

OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

3750 UNIVERSITY A

VENUE

P.O. BOX 1028

RIVERSIDE, C

ALIFORNIA 92502

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 

RVPUB\GWILKINSON\712297.1 - 3 - 

STIPULATION FOR INTERVENTION BY THE 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

Dated: ________________, 2006 EARTHJUSTICE 

By: /s/ Michael R. Sherwood___________

MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD 

ANDREA A. TREECE 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF 

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS / 

INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES 

RESOURCES, THE BAY INSTITUTE, 

BAYKEEPER & ITS DELTAKEEPER 

CHAPTER, CALIFORNIA TROUT, 

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE 

FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERS, 

SACRAMENTO RIVER 

PRESERVATION TRUST and 

WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE 

Dated: ________________, 2006 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL 

By:____/s/ Hamilton Candee______________

HAMILTON CANDEE 

KATHERINE S. POOLE 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL 

Dated: ________________, 2006 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL 

RESOURCES DIVISION 

By: /s/ Keith W. Rizzardi______________

KEITH W. RIZZARDI 

Attorney for Federal Defendants 

CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, WILLIAM T. 

HOGARTH, GAIL A. NORTON, and 

JOHN W. KEYS 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 45 Filed 05/04/06 Page 4 of 5
LA

W

OFFICES OF

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

3750 UNIVERSITY A

VENUE

P.O. BOX 1028

RIVERSIDE, C

ALIFORNIA 92502

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 

RVPUB\GWILKINSON\712297.1 - 4 - 

STIPULATION FOR INTERVENTION BY THE 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS 

Dated: ________________, 2006 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU 

By: /s/ Brenda Washington Davis_______

BRENDA WASHINGTON DAVIS 

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendant 

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU 

FEDERATION 

 

Dated: ________________, 2006 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN & 

GIRARD 

By: /s/ Daniel J. O’Hanlon_____________

DANIEL J. O’HANLON 

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendant 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA 

WATER AUTHORITY and 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 

Dated: ________________, 2006 SOMACH, SIMMONS & DUNN 

By: /s/ Andrew M. Hitchings__________

ANDREW M. HITCHINGS 

Attorneys for Intervenor Defendants 

GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 

NATOMAS CENTRAL MUTUAL WATER 

CO., PELGER MUTUAL WATER CO., 

PLEASANT GROVE-VERONA MUTUAL 

WATER COMPANY, PRINCETONCODORA-GLENN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 

PROVIDENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT 108, RIVER 

GARDEN FARMS 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

DATED: ____May 3, 2006__ __/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER______________ 

 Oliver W. Wanger 

 United States District Court 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 45 Filed 05/04/06 Page 5 of 5