Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-88-1658 LKK

Plaintiffs,

O R D E R

v.

KIRK C. RODGERS, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On July 28, 2005, this court issued an Order on Motion for

Summary Judgment relating to the Endangered Species Act. In due

course, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court’s

order granting summary judgment to defendants relative to

plaintiffs’ causes of action concerning an asserted requirement

of reinitiation of consultation. 

The parties agree on what circumstances permit

reconsideration, and the court will not pause to further address

the matter save to note that either new law or plain error

suffices. I do note, however, the government’s contention that,

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1240 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 4
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

1 Washington Toxics is inapposite to the instant case in

another respect. The question at issue in Washington Toxics was

whether the EPA was required to engage in consultation with the

National Marine Fisheries Service before registering pesticide

active ingredients that could have affected listed species, whereas

the issue upon which plaintiffs base this motion to reconsider is

whether federal defendants were required to reinitiate consultation

after a decision was issued by Judge Wanger in 2002. As I noted

in the order issued on July 28, 2005, the standards as to whether

reinitiation of formal consultation is required is set forth under

50 C.F.R. § 402.16. Whether an action agency is required to

consult with the appropriate consulting agency to ensure that the

2

given the court’s finding that the BOs in issue were arbitrary

and capricious, plaintiffs’ claims regarding reinitiation are in

effect moot. On the one hand, the government’s position seems

correct; on the other hand, this court’s determination is hardly

the last word on the subject, and while the court feels

confident it has done its best to resolve the difficult issue at

bar, I cannot ignore the possibility of error. If the Ninth

Circuit were to so conclude, the record on the reinitiation

issue should be complete so as to avoid remand for further

consideration. For that reason, the court now proceeds to

resolve the motion.

For the reasons expressed in the defendants’ opposition,

the court concludes, as they maintain, that Washington Toxics

Coalition v. E.P.A., 413 F.3d. 1024 (9th Cir. 2005), does not

constitute new law bearing on the instant case. The facts at

issue there, and the facts at issue in the matter at bar, are

entirely disparate, and as the government noted, the 

Circuit explained that for that reason “EPIC did not apply

here.” Id. at 1033.1

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1240 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 4
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

federal action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of an endangered or threatened species and that the action will not

result in adverse modification of the designated critical habitat

is governed by 16 U.S.C. § 1536 and 50 C.F.R. § 402.14. Order at

19-20, 72.

3

The question concerning manifest error is more difficult.

Here, the question is two-fold: (1) whether O’Neil v. United

States, 50 F.3d. 677 (9th Cir. 1995), compels a different

result; and (2) whether the court overlooked language retaining

discretion or control over the delivery of water for purposes of

protecting endangered species, either by virtue of specific

contract action or law. E.P.I.C. v. Simpson Timber Co., 255

F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2001). I begin by noting that, as the

government maintains, the issue in O’Neil is the liability of

the government for withholding water, an issue which is

different from whether the contract contains specific provision

for withholding additional water for environmental purposes

where there are changed circumstances. Thus, O’Neil does not

directly require reconsideration. Nonetheless, as I now

explain, O’Neill does bear upon the question of discretion.

The much more difficult issue tendered by plaintiffs’

motion is whether there is, in fact, the kind of discretion

required to permit reinitiation. All parties agree that, as in

O’Neil, the Bureau retains the power to alter water delivery “to

meet legal obligations,” without incurring liability. Art. 12,

Friant Dam Contracts. Judge Wanger’s determination is a legal

obligation. Accordingly, the government may alter deliveries to

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1240 Filed 10/06/05 Page 3 of 4
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

2 Given the above disposition, the court need not consider

whether, as Friant defendants maintain, the issue has been waived

by plaintiffs. 

4

accommodate that decision. On the other hand, Judge Wanger’s

decision addresses the entire Central Valley Project, and not

just the water delivery under the contracts at bar. In sum, it

cannot be said with certainty that “. . . the identified action

is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to

the listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an

extent not previously considered in the biological opinion,”

E.P.I.C. 255 F.3d at 1076, thus giving rise to an obligation to

re-consult. If, in fact, the government decides that, by virtue

of Judge Wanger’s decision, it must reduce the amount of water

diverted from these contracts to the Delta for aiding in

preservation of fish, then the issue becomes ripe for

reinitiation. I thus conclude that the previous decision is not

clearly erroneous, and the motion for reconsideration must be

DENIED.2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1240 Filed 10/06/05 Page 4 of 4