Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, in his official

capacity as Secretary of the

Interior; and H. DALE HALL, in

his official capacity as

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service,

Defendants,

________________________________

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER

AUTHORITY, WESTLANDS WATER

DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION, GLENN COLUSA

IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER

RESOURCES, STATE WATER

CONTRACTORS, KERN COUNTY WATER

AGENCY,

Defendant-Intervenors.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-1207 OWW TAG

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE:

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On June 22, 2007, the Court held an expedited hearing to

consider the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

and Preliminary Injunction, Docket Number 343 (filed June 19,

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 31
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

2007). 

Plaintiff, Natural Resources Defense Council, was

represented by attorneys Katherine Poole, Esq., and Earth Justice

was represented by Andrea A. Treece, Esq., and Trent W. Orr, Esq. 

Defendant Dirk Kempthorne, in his official capacity as Secretary

of the Interior, and Defendant Steven A. Williams, in his

official capacity as Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, were

represented by James A. Maysonette, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S.

Department of Justice. Defendant-Intervenors, San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District, were

represented by Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard by Daniel

J. O’Hanlon, Esq.; Defendant-Intervenor, California Farm Bureau

Federation, was represented by Christian C. Scheuring, Esq.,

Brenda Washington Davis, Esq.; Defendant Glen-Colusa Irrigation

District, et al., were represented by Somach, Simmons & Dunn by

Andrew J. Hitchings, Esq., and Jackie McDonald, Esq. The

California Department of Water Resources was represented by

Deputy Attorneys General Clifford J. Lee, Esq., and Deborah

Wordham, Esq. Defendant State Water Contractors were represented

by Best, Best & Krieger, LLP, by Gregory K. Wilkinson, Esq. 

The parties submitted Memoranda of Law, Declarations under

penalty of perjury of witnesses, and various exhibits in support

of and opposition to the application for injunctive relief. No

oral testimony was presented. The Court considered all such

submissions, the oral arguments of counsel and after full

consideration, announced an oral statement of decision to be

confirmed by written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 31
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

FINDINGS OF FACT

Jeopardy to the Delta Smelt.

1. The Declaration of Christina Swanson, Ph.D., shows an

alarming drop in the abundance of Delta smelt, a listed

threatened species indigenous to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

of California. She declares that “for an annual species such as

Delta smelt, failure to recruit a new year-class is an urgent

indicator that the species has become critically imperiled and an

emergency response is warranted.” 

2. The Delta Smelt Working Group (“DSWG”), a group of

fishery biologists representing all concerned state and federal

agencies responsible for protection of species under the

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), as of May 15, 2007, recommended

that the Water Operations Management Team (WOMT) implement two

actions: (1) a goal of “no further entrainment of Delta smelt” at

the state and federal pumps in the Delta; and (2) modifications

to the Projects’ operations “to achieve a non-negative daily flow

(meaning daily net flow should not be southward) in the Old and

Middle Sacramento River . . . [to] be implemented as soon as

possible and continue until Southern Delta water temperatures

reach 25EC, the lab-lethal limit [ ]” to Delta smelt. 

3. On May 25, 2007, the Court found, in a Memorandum

Decision concerning Plaintiffs’ challenge to the 2005 OCAP

Biological Opinion, that “the 2005 OCAP BiOp is unlawful and

inadequate,” in part because “[t]he DSRAM, as currently

structured, does not provide a reasonable degree of certainty

that mitigation measures will take place.” The Court found that

existing take limits established by the BiOp are inadequate to

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 31
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

protect the species; that the DSRAM must be made more certain and

enforceable; that the BiOp did not use the best available

science; failed to adequately define and address the impacts of

joint Project operations on continued survival of the Delta

smelt; and failed to adequately consider impacts to critical

habitat. The Court further found that the BiOp’s no jeopardy

finding was arbitrary, capricious, and without rational

connection to the status of the species.

4. The Court’s decision on the 2005 OCAP BiOp and the

parties’ agreement in open court at the June 22, 2007, TRO

hearing, confirms that the Delta smelt is indisputably in

jeopardy as to its survival and recovery. The parties do not

agree about the imminency of that threat of extinction and

whether the DSWG recommendations to reduce pumping are necessary

and effective to protect the species from extinction.

The Government’s Response.

5. Commencing May 31, 2007, the State of California

Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), operator of the State

Water Project, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation

(“Bureau”), operator of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”),

implemented a reduction in pumping at the state and federal

pumps, which export water south of the Delta to irrigation

districts, municipal and industrial users, and other state and

federal water contractors, who in turn supply water to

approximately 20 million people. 

6. The pumps remained at minimum operating output for

approximately 10 days. Pumping resumed around June 10, 2007, and

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 31
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

has been ramped upward toward historic operating levels, in the

2,500 to 3,500 per cubic feet per second (cfs) range, which is

normal for the critical water delivery months of June and July. 

7. Following June 10 and the increase in the rate of

pumping, 468 Delta smelt were taken at the state pumps between

June 10, 2007, and June 18, 2007, and 61 Delta smelt were taken

at the federal pumps between June 13, 2007, and June 18, 2007. 

(Ex. 9, ¶2, Ex. 10 at 3).

8. Plaintiffs assert that collectively, state and federal

pumps killed more than ten times the number of Delta smelt

between June 10 and June 18 than the California Department of

Fish & Game was able to locate in the entire Delta during the

spring of 2007. 

9. During the operation at minimum safe pumping levels,

around 850 cfs, no entrainment of smelt were reported at the

state or federal pumping facilities. 

10. In addition to reducing pumping to minimum safe levels

for the approximately 10 day period from May 31 to June 10, the

Federal Defendants have purchased approximately 5.2 million

dollars worth of water to enhance fish protection flows. 

11. The parties acknowledge two identified trawl surveys

are reliable and that the most recent survey for juvenile delta

smelt, the California Department of Fish and Game’s 20 mm survey

(completed June 9, 2007), indicates that the population of the

delta smelt seems to be located mostly in the north or west areas

of the Delta in Suisun Bay and not in the areas immediately

surrounding the CVP and SWP pumps. (Docket No. 339, Ex. 2). 

12. Presently, the evidence in the record is not sufficient

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 5 of 31
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

to resolve certain scientific questions relating to the water

temperature in the south and central Delta near the location of

the pumps and its effect on the Delta smelt. 

13. To offset the drastic reduction in pumping, the Bureau

has taken water from the New Melones River to augment Sacramento

River flows and has drawn down the San Luis Reservoir to the

point where continued pumping at minimum safe levels, 850 cfs,

will exhaust the capacity of that reservoir within approximately

18 days. 

14. When the Bureau is temporarily unable, for any reason,

to deliver State Contractors substitute water from the DeltaMendota Canal or other sources, water is to be delivered from the

San Joaquin River according to the Exchange Contract. (Exhibit A

to White Decl. ¶4).

15. Given the amount of storage in Millerton Lake, a call

by the Exchange Contractors this summer on Friant Division Water

will result in almost the entire amount of storage being

dedicated to the requirements of the Exchange Contracting

Purchase Agreement. (White Decl. ¶5). 

16. If the Bureau makes a call on Friant under the

temporary inability provisions of the Exchange Contract, such

releases from Millerton Lake must first re-water the San Joaquin

River, which will result in significant water losses through the

re-watering process of the dry river bed, approximating 70,000

acre-feet. (White Decl. ¶8).

17. If a call was made on Friant Water, such water would be

insufficient to meet Exchange Contractors’ demands through the

remainder of the summer months. (White Decl. ¶9). 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 6 of 31
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

Relief Sought.

18. The Plaintiffs seek, and all Defendants oppose, a

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the

following form: 

NOW THEREFORE, good cause appearing, the Court grants

Plaintiffs’ motion. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS Federal

Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant California

Department of Water Resources to implement immediately

and fully all recommendations of the Delta Smelt

Working Group. This order shall remain in effect until

the Court issues its remedy order, or until other order

of the Court.

19. To assess the irreparability and immediacy of injury

and the balance of hardships, additional facts provided by all

Defendants, were considered, but to which Plaintiffs did not have

the opportunity to respond due to the expedited hearing which

gave the court less than 24 hours to consider. 

20. Throughout the critical period of the weeks leading to

the June 22 hearing, the Bureau worked closely with state and

federal wildlife and water management agencies to monitor the

effects of CVP operations on the Delta smelt. A preliminary

report was filed by the Bureau with the Court May 31, 2007. 

21. The DSWG has met frequently, made several sets of

recommendations to the WOMT, and the WOMT has reviewed those

recommendations and implemented some operational changes. 

22. Counsel for the Federal Defendants have been in

continuous communication with counsel for Plaintiffs to discuss

the status of Delta smelt and CVP operations. 

23. An initial step implemented by the WOMT was to reduce

combined exports from the CVP and SWP to 1,200 cfs, which

represents 850 cfs at the CVP and 350 cfs at the SWP around May

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 7 of 31
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

15, 2007. 

24. The 850 cfs export level is the minimum water flow

necessary to avoid health and safety issues for municipal users

and keep the federal pumps operative and mechanically functional. 

25. Normal export operations for the Projects during the

month of June are between 3,000 cfs and 3,500 cfs. (Milligan

Decl. ¶4.) 

26. The Bureau limited pumping at its Jones Pumping Plant

to 850 cfs from May 15 until June 12. 

27. Based on the WOMT’s decision, the DWR initiated removal

of the Head of Old River barrier (“HORB”) on May 15, 2007, and

opened all six of the culverts on the HORB on May 16, 2007. 

(WOMT summary, May 22, 2007). 

28. The Bureau endeavored to operate the Projects to have

“no net effect,” but further reduction in pumping with only one

pump in operation at the Jones Plant by “cycling” the pump on and

off, could cause significant damage to the pump itself, which

would result in the pump going out of service for a year to

rewind the pump. (Milligan Decl. ¶10.) 

29. The Bureau attempted to offset diversions at Jones

Pumping Plant with additional releases to the tributaries of the

San Joaquin River. (Gude Decl. ¶4.) 

30. Higher releases from New Melones Reservoir on the

Stanislaus River were made to increase flows on the San Joaquin

River. (Milligan Decl. ¶8.) 

31. The Bureau later ramped-down flows on the Stanislaus

River to provide a cue to juvenile fall run Chinook salmon (not

listed) and listed Steelhead to “out-migrate” before water

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 8 of 31
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

temperatures in the Delta reached lethal levels. (Oppenheim

Decl. ¶5.) 

32. Additional water was released from other San Joaquin

River tributaries to compensate for those reduced flows. 

(Milligan Decl. ¶3.) 

33. The Bureau and the WOMT opined that “it was probably

not possible to achieve no negative flows on the Old and Middle

Rivers, even if the pumps were shut down entirely due to

increasing local diversions, tides, and other factors.” 

(Milligan Decl. ¶12.)

34. To attempt to maintain Old and Middle River flows

greater than or equal to zero, the Bureau operated one pump unit

only at the Jones Plant to maintain supplies to the City of Tracy

and agricultural users upstream of the O’Neill Pumps.” (WOMT

meeting notes May 29, 2007).

35. In late May the DSWG recommended the Delta Cross

Channel (“DCC”) gates be opened to reduce entrainment risk for

Delta smelt. (DSWG meeting notes June 4, 2007). 

36. The WOMT agreed to open the gates, but a few days later

concluded that it was appropriate to close the gates for several

days for “water quality protection,” a competing priority. (WOMT

meeting notes May 25 and 29, 2007). 

37. The WOMT then cycled the gates open and closed based on

WOMT advice and opinion that “(1) closing the DCC gates would

likely have only minimal benefit to smelt; (2) adverse impacts to

emigrating Sacramento Basin Salmonids, and (3) potential

violations of water quality standards/objectives.” (WOMT

Decision May 31, 2007) (reaffirmed June 5, 2007).

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 9 of 31
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

38. On June 4, 2007, the DSWG advised the WOMT that further

reoperation of the DCC gates will not likely have a beneficial

affect on the risk of entrainment of Delta smelt. (DSWG meeting

notes June 4, 2007). DSWG acknowledged that WOMT took the DSWG

recommendation seriously, properly weighed other important

factors, including water quality and potential harm to salmonids

emigrating from the Sacramento tributaries. (DSWG meeting notes

June 4, 2007). 

39. The WOMT concluded it properly recommended opening the

DCC gates, even though the benefits to the Delta smelt were “very

small” and uncertain and even though doing so could harm listed

salmon, because its recommendation was based solely on the

potential impacts of Project operations on Delta smelt.” (DSWG

meeting notes June 4, 2007). 

40. The Bureau increased pumping June 13, 2007 at the Jones

Plant from 850 cfs to 2,500 cfs, (Olah Decl. ¶2), after carefully

evaluating potential effect on Delta smelt. 

41. “Particle tracking” models were used to determine how

increased pumping would affect smelt, because Delta smelt are in

a state of development where they are unable to swim

independently of the movement of water and behave like particles

in the water column. (Olah Decl. ¶2). 

42. Models showed that when pumping at DWR and CVP pumps

was increased to 2,500 cfs, Delta smelt located in the mainstem

of the Sacramento River and in the north Delta did not end up at

export facilities and did not face increased risk of entrainment. 

Instead, the smelt continued downstream or remained in the Delta. 

(Olah Decl. ¶4). 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 10 of 31
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

43. Only a very low proportion of the Delta smelt located

in the Central Delta ended up at the export facilities. (Olah

Decl. ¶4). From this, Federal Defendants concluded that Delta

smelt were mostly located in the north Delta, on the mainstream

of the Sacramento River, or were already downstream of the

confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. (Olah Decl.

¶5).

44. For this reason, the increase in pumping was not

expected to significantly increase the number of smelt being

taken at the pumps. Actual experience was to the contrary June

13-19. 

45. The USFWS and the DSWG reviewed these models. The

USFWS agreed with the Bureau’s conclusion there should be no

significant adverse effects to current population of juvenile

Delta smelt from increasing combined diversions (export pumping)

of the SWP and CVP to approximately 2,500 cfs. (Olah Decl. ¶¶2,

3, 5). 

46. The DSWG concluded that the “[r]esults of salvage

monitoring, recent surveys and particle modeling . . . indicate

that most juvenile Delta smelt are outside the entrainment

footprint . . . .” (DSWG meeting notes June 11, 2007).

47. As of June 10, 2007, the DSWG found it was appropriate

for the Projects to increase export pumping to 2,500 cfs

combined. Id.

48. The DSWG cautioned, however, that “[i]f any Delta smelt

are taken at the export facilities, Project operations should

immediately be modified to achieve a net flow in Old and Middle

Rivers as close to zero as possible . . . .” Id.

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 11 of 31
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

49. On June 12, 2007, the DSWG recommended that “water

project operations be modified to maintain non-negative daily net

flow” because some Delta smelt had been taken at the pumps at the

SWP, although the DSWG was uncertain whether the smelt had been

drawn in from the Delta, or were already resident in the Clifton

Forebay. 

50. The Bureau nonetheless concluded it was appropriate to

increase pumping to approximately 2,500 cfs commencing June 13,

2007. (2d Milligan Decl. ¶2). 

51. The Bureau’s decision was based on its models and

additional factors including: (1) there had been no “take” of

Delta smelt at Jones Pumping Plant from May 30 to June 13,

although approximately nine smelt were taken at the Jones Plant

by the time of the June 19 hearing; (2) current surveys did not

find any Delta smelt in the southern Delta; and (3) demands for

water in the Central Valley were increasing and significant

rationing would be required if diversions were not increased. 

(2d Milligan Decl. ¶2(a)-(f)). 

52. By June 13, 2007, the Bureau increased diversions at

the Jones Plant from 850 cfs to 2,500 cfs. (2d Gude Decl. ¶3). 

53. As of the hearing date, temperatures in the Delta were

rising near or above 100EF. (2d Gude Decl. ¶4). 

54. As a result, water temperatures in the Delta were

rising. (2d Gude Decl. ¶4).

55. Once water temperatures reach 25EC, a temperature that

is lethal for Delta smelt under laboratory conditions, any smelt

remaining in the South Delta are not expected to survive, whether

entrained at the pumps or not. (2d Gude Decl. ¶6). 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 12 of 31
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

56. The DSWG modified its recommendation that “non-negative

flows” on the Old and Middle River be maintained only until

“southern Delta water temperatures reach 25EC, the lab-lethal

limit.” (2d Gude Decl. ¶¶3, 4) (Briefing Statement, DSWG May 15,

2007). 

57. On June 18, 2007, the average water temperature at

relevant monitoring stations reached 25EC. (3rd Milligan Decl.

¶3).

58. At the hearing, the Plaintiffs offered evidence that

the temperature also fell in the days immediately prior to the

June 19 hearing, and that average temperatures in the Delta were

ranging between approximately 24EC to 26EC. 

59. As the Delta moves from spring to neap tide, average

depth in the south Delta waterway is reduced and those waterways

will experience more rapid rise in water temperature. (2d Gude

Decl. ¶5).

60. As of June 19, 2007, the Bureau opined that Delta water

temperature conditions are such that any Delta smelt remaining in

waters near the federal and state pumps are not expected to

survive, regardless of entrainment. 

61. Following June 13, 2007, increased exports at the SWP

and CVP pumps, “take” of Delta smelt occurred exceeding 300

smelt. (DSWG meeting notes June 18, 2007).

62. As of June 19, 2007, the DSWG continues to believe

that, despite high water temperatures, “Delta smelt currently

being salvaged could still be valuable to the population as a

whole and exports should be curtailed.” (DSWG meeting notes June

18, 2007).

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 13 of 31
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

63. The parties agree that salvage results in the death of

Delta smelt in all cases. 

64. The DSWG recommendation for curtailing export would

expire, “if no further salvage occurred” because “[h]istoric

salvage patterns . . . indicate that salvage is likely near

conclusion for the water year.” (DSWG meeting notes June 18,

2007). No precise date was specified by the DSWG for when smelt

salvage concludes during each water year.

65. From these facts it is the Bureau’s opinion that when

water temperature is maintained at 25EC or above, salvage is

concluded for the water year. All Defendants opine that there is

no benefit to curtailing exports by reduced pumping after salvage

concludes.

66. There is no reasonable certainty when salvage will

conclude and reduction of export pumping will provide no benefit. 

67. The USFWS disagreed with the DSWG’s recommendations and

drafted its own opinion that “any Delta smelt remaining [in] the

South Delta will not be able to survive for a period sufficiently

long enough to move to the vicinity of the confluence of the

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers . . .” (DSWG meeting notes

June 18, 2007). 

68. The USFWS currently holds a contrary scientific opinion

from the DSWG about the benefits of reduced pumping, in that the

USFWS believes reductions in pumping at the SWP and CVP would not

provide a benefit to those Delta smelt remaining in the South

Delta, instead, “few smelt remained in the South Delta and these

fish are not likely to make it to the confluence area before

temperatures reach 25EC.” 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 14 of 31
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

15

69. As of the hearing, these conflicting scientific

opinions had been submitted to the WOMT and the differences

concerning the benefits of reduced exports were not resolved as

of the date of the June 19 hearing. This scientific controversy

cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing.

70. There are materially conflicting scientific opinions

between the DSWG and the USFWS:

a. About the value of currently reducing exports and

its present and future effects on survival of the smelt during

the 2007 water year;

b. About the present location of the existing Delta

smelt population;

c. About the present abundance of and reliable

population data for the Delta smelt; 

d. About the effect of CVP and SWP operations on the

survival of the smelt now, and for the remaining 2007 water year;

e. Whether other causes have materially contributed

to the decline of the smelt. 

LEGAL DISPUTES OVER JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

71. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is based on an Administrative

Procedures Act challenge that the BiOp issued by the NMFS was

unlawful. The Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not name as a party,

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of

the Interior. 

72. Plaintiffs sent a 60-day notice to sue to the Bureau on

May 31, 2007. 

73. Plaintiffs contend they sent a prior “60-day notice to

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 15 of 31
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

16

the Bureau of Reclamation over one year ago.” There is a legal

dispute over whether the same issues joined in this case are

covered by the earlier ESA notice. 

74. The Complaint does not include an Endangered Species

Act claim. 

75. The Bureau is the action agency for ESA review.

76. The Court has jurisdiction over the Secretary of the

Interior, but not the Bureau, at the present time.

77. The present claims challenging the BiOp, do not include

Endangered Species Act claims that address the effects of the

Bureau’s and DWR’s operations on the Delta smelt.

78. The adaptive management process (“DSRAM”) that has been

found unlawful, does not require the Bureau to implement all

recommendations made by the DSWG. 

79. Under the Bureau’s current operating protocol, the DSWG

presents its recommendations to the WOMT, which decides if and

how any DSWG recommendations are to be implemented.

80. It is disputed whether the Bureau has implemented

substantial mitigation measures based on decisions of the WOMT to

address the existing jeopardy to the Delta smelt.

81. It is disputed between the DSWG on one hand and the

WOMT and USFWS on the other, whether any remaining smelt in the

South and Central Delta will be able to survive rising water

temperatures and swim to cooler water. 

82. Bureau and FWS scientists currently believe most of the

Delta smelt population is north and west of the Delta in the

vicinity of the Suisun Bay.

83. If Delta smelt cannot survive existing and rising water

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 16 of 31
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

17

temperatures in the Delta, shutting down the SWP and CVP pumps

during June and July will not provide effective benefit to the

species. 

MATERIAL EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES AND LIKELY HARDSHIPS

84. The evidence does not preponderate that reducing

exports to the minimum safety level of 1,200 cfs will maintain

non-negative flows on the Old and Middle Rivers. 

85. The DWR acknowledges that the abundance of Delta smelt

at present is at its lowest point on record. Because the DWR

facilities have a forebay (Clifton Court Forebay), in front of

them, salvage at the CVP is a better indicator of current

presence of Delta smelt in adjacent South Delta waterways. (Ford

Decl. Ex. G).

86. DWR and State Department of Fish & Game (“DFG”)

scientists have concluded that the bulk of the smelt population

have migrated away from the South Delta and the influence of

project pumps. 

87. The DWR is required to pump, daily, 333 cfs minimum

exports to meet the demands of the Byron-Bethany Irrigation

District turnout to supply agricultural users and the City of

Mountain House; the South Bay Contractors (Alameda County Flood &

Water Conservation District Zone 7, Alameda County Water

District, and Santa Clara Valley Water District), and State and

Federal Contractors on the California Aqueduct between Banks and

the San Luis Reservoir. 

88. If pumping at Banks and diversion into Clifton Court

Forebay stops as of June 25, 2007, and goes through July 15,

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 17 of 31
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

2007, the reduction in deliveries would be between 125,000 and

250,000 acre-feet. (Torgersen Decl. ¶15).

89. With no diversion into CCF, and curtailed pumping at

Banks, immediate impacts would affect the Bethany Bay Irrigation

District (“BBID”), South Bay Contractors, and the California

Aqueduct State and Federal Diverters between Banks and the San

Luis Reservoir, including the San Joaquin Valley National

Cemetery and the Korean War Memorial, who will lose all water

supplies from the SWP. Those locations rely exclusively on water

supply through Banks. (Torgersen Decl. ¶17).

90. BBID relies exclusively on water from CCF to irrigate

30,000 acres of farmland and to provide water to the City of

Mountain House. BBID will have no water supply in as few as 26

days if diversions into the Clifton Court Forebay stop. 

(Torgersen Decl. ¶18).

91. If water is not replenished into Bethany Reservoir, six

of the South Bay Contractors’ turnouts (including a water

treatment plant) would ultimately lose all supply. These six

turnouts have no other source of supply except through Banks,

which requires a 30-35 cfs per day average to meet minimum needs. 

At the current level of storage at the Bethany Reservoir, these

turnouts will be without water supply in as few as 18 days. 

92. Since the beginning of Vernalis Adaptive Management

Project Operations on April 23, 2007, the SWP has relied on

storage in the San Luis Reservoir to meet demands of the State

Water Contractors. (Torgersen Decl. ¶20).

93. If Delta exports continue to be curtailed through July

15, 2007, the elevation change in the San Luis Reservoir water

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 18 of 31
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

19

level since the beginning of VAMP, would be about 145 feet in

approximately 84 days, which, in the opinion of the DWR and the

Bureau, would produce a failure in the upstream face of the dam

as a result of rapid water withdrawal, similar to such an

occurrence in 1981. This would necessitate the complete draining

of the San Luis Reservoir and would keep it out of service for up

to one year. (Torgersen Decl. ¶20).

94. The DWR opines a number of factors other than

entrainment have contributed to the very low numbers of juvenile

smelt observed in 2007, including (1) other diversions; (2) poor

food sources; and (3) potential toxic effects of pesticides. 

(Ford Decl. ¶8). 

95. An expert for the San Luis & Delta-Mendota, et al.,

Defendants, Dr. Manly, opines that while the effects of flows and

exports are statistically significant, they do not “have much

affect on the long term trends in Delta smelt numbers and do not

seem to be important compared to other things going on.” (Manly

Decl. ¶9).

96. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota, et al., Defendants claim

severe hardships from the DSWG reduced pumping proposal,

including, but not limited to:

a. Immediate and severe water shortages of 44% for

CVP contractors other than the Exchange Contractors; 

b. Complete exhaustion of the CVP water supply in the

San Luis Reservoir by mid-July; 

c. Zero supply for CVP Contractors, other than the

Exchange Contractors from mid-July onward;

d. Economic losses exceeding $13,250,000 to 12,650

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 19 of 31
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

acres of crops increasing to a worst-case scenario of potential

losses affecting one million acres, approaching $1 billion if no

CVP water is delivered after June 19, 2007, to CVP contractors,

other than the Exchange Contractors (Harrison Decl. ¶12), (Nelson

Decl. ¶3);

e. The City of Tracy depends upon the CVP for onehalf of its water supply (Daly Decl. ¶3);

f. Rationing on municipal users would be required in

the event of an injunction (Daly Decl. ¶6);

g. Santa Clara Valley Water District is a municipal

contractor for CVP and SWP water. Draw-down from the San Luis

Reservoir would impair its ability to divert water through the

Pacheco Pumping Plant and will create significant water quality

problems (Kao Decl. ¶¶5, 7);

h. Without water deliveries, increased reliance on

groundwater would likely result in overdraft, subsidence, and

salinity build-up in the soils of CVP Contractors would occur. 

(Nelson Decl. ¶11);

i. All Defendants claim the public has an interest in

both protecting listed species and in ensuring that cities and

farms have an adequate and reliable water supply.

FORM OF ORDER-IMPROPER DELEGATION, OVERBREADTH

97. All Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors object to the

text of the proposed order as too indefinite, overbroad, and an

improper delegation of the Court’s legal authority in violation

of the separation of powers doctrine.

98. All Defendants argue that an order delegating operation

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 20 of 31
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

21

of the CVP to the DSWG would improperly change the status quo.

99. The proposed order submitted by the Plaintiffs, in its

present form, violates Article III of the Constitution by

delegating the operation of the CVP to the Delta Smelt Working

Group without any specific or enforceable provisions, directions,

or standards, and without assuring the protection of public

health and safety or the integrity of the CVP operations and

infrastructure and other Bureau facilities. In its present form,

the Court concludes that the proposed order would amount to a

usurpation or improper encroachment by the Court on the lawful

authority of the Executive Branch to administer and exercise its

administrative authority and discretion in operating the CVP. 

100. All Defendants contend the DSWG lacks the competence

to operate the CVP. 

BOND

101. San Luis & Delta-Mendota, et al., Defendants and State

Water Contractors assert that a bond of at least $25 million is

necessary to protect against the damage that would be caused by

an improvident issuance of injunctive relief. 

102. Defendant-Intervenors claim the Plaintiffs have

sufficient resources to post a bond. 

HARDSHIPS TO DEFENDANTS

103. Maintenance of not less than zero net flow in Old and

Middle Rivers requires limiting diversions to 950 cfs. (Erlewine

Decl. ¶8). 

104. In-Delta diversions of Old and Middle Rivers are

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 21 of 31
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

22

already around 600 cfs and diversions by Contra Costa Water

District are already greater than 400 cfs, the maintenance of a

zero net flow to Old and Middle Rivers precludes any diversion of

water at the Tracy Pumping Plants at the SWP or CVP. A zero net

flow at Old and Middle Rivers could not be obtained because

pumping by others not before the court exceeds those flows.

105. If existing water supplies in the San Luis Reservoir

are not replenished over the next 30 days, the SWP will meet only

57% of the 390,000 acre-feet in existing demands it has during

that period. (Erlewine Decl. ¶10).

106. Due to limited local supplies, the Alameda County Zone

7 Water Agency water delivery capacity, which relies on the SWP

for 80% of its water, would be in jeopardy. (Duerig Decl. ¶3).

107. Based on physical constraints in water systems, up to

200,000 residents of Eastern Alameda County would be in grave

danger of immediately losing 40-55% of their water deliveries if

the Banks Pumping Plant were shut down. (Duerig Decl. ¶¶2, 9).

108. The Zone 7 Water Agency is the sole, direct source of

water supply to the Veterans Administration Medical Center in

Livermore, Camp Parks Military Base, Alameda County Santa Rita

Jail, facilities of Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District,

and the Dublin Housing Authority. (Duerig Decl. ¶2).

109. This creates a potential public safety risk to the

communities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore by reducing the

Zone 7 Water Agency’s ability to provide adequate fire flow

during the summer fire season. (Duerig Decl. ¶9).

110. Limited local service in groundwater supplies would be

further taxed and most, if not all, local water supplies would be

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 22 of 31
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

23

exhausted in a matter of days in Zone 7 Water Agency territory. 

(Duerig Decl. ¶12).

111. If the DSWG reduced pumping were implemented,

thousands of Zone 7 Water Agency residential and business

customers, who will be most acutely affected, do not all

immediately comply with mandatory rationing requirements that

would be imposed, basic needs of schools, senior care facilities,

laboratories, and others in the area, will not be met. (Duerig

Decl. ¶¶2, 11).

112. In Santa Clara County the requested TRO and shut down

of pumping will put water supplies for nearly 2 million people at

risk. (Kao Decl. ¶¶2, 4).

113. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is supplied by

both SWP and CVP under contract and has annual water demand for

Santa Clara County of nearly 400,000 acre-feet. (Kao Decl.

ibid.)

114. In 2007, Santa Clara expects SWP and CVP supplies to

meet around 70% of its anticipated water demand. (Kao Decl. ¶5).

115. If pumping at the SWP’s Banks Pumping Plant is

precluded, Santa Clara will not receive water it is contracted to

take through the SWP’s South Bay Aqueduct. (Kao Decl. ¶3).

116. If water levels at San Luis Reservoir are reduced,

Santa Clara will be unable to take water contracted to receive

through the CVP San Felipe Project. (Kao Decl. ¶¶5, 7).

117. Santa Clara’s ability to receive CVP water depends

upon combined level of storage of CVP and SWP water at the San

Luis Reservoir. (Kao Decl. ¶5).

118. Because the intake of San Felipe Division’s Pumping

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 23 of 31
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

24

Plant is the outlet from San Luis Reservoir that serves all other

SWP and CVP contractors, the San Felipe Division experiences

significant water quality problems due to algae concentration

when the Reservoir is drawn below 300,000 acre-feet of storage. 

(Kao Decl. ¶¶8 & 9).

119. Algae problems will create concerns for drinking water

supplies and serious operational issues for drip agricultural

irrigation systems of agricultural water users through Santa

Clara and San Benito Counties. (Kao Decl. ¶8).

120. In the event San Luis Reservoir supplies drop below

110,000 acre-feet, CVP water deliveries in the San Felipe

Division may be interrupted for an extended period presenting

more serious health and safety issues. (Kao Decl. ¶9).

121. The Alameda County Water District (“ACWD”) is a retail

water supplier with the service area of approximately 100 square

miles encompassing the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City

in Southern Alameda County. (Stinson Decl. ¶2).

122. ACWD provides drinking water to a population of over

320,000 people and is also the sole water supplier for numerous

business industries, schools, and hospitals in its service area. 

(Stinson Decl. ¶2).

123. ACWD has a contract right to 42,000 acre-feet of water

per year from the SWP and the SWP water supplied to ACWD

constitutes approximately 40% of its local potable water. 

(Stinson Decl. ¶3).

124. If SWP Banks is shut down again over the next 30 days,

releases from Del Valle Reservoir combined with limited amounts

of water currently stored in Bethany Reservoir, may provide up to

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 24 of 31
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

25

19 mgd of SWP supply for 10 days. (Stinson Decl. ¶5).

125. After 10 days, ACWD would be compelled to rely solely

on releases from Lake Del Valle to provide SWP water to the South

Bay Aqueduct. 

126. Since ACWD’s share of Lake Del Valle releases would be

limited to 15 mgd, the shut down would result in a loss of 27 mgd

of SWP water supplies during the last three weeks of June,

representing a 64% reduction in ACWD’s planned deliveries over

this three week period. (Stinson Decl. ¶5).

127. ACWD would then be forced to rely upon local

groundwater reserves, depleting supplies available for dry years

and emergencies. (Stinson Decl. ¶¶6 & 7).

128. In Kern County, SWP water comprises 98% of water

imported by the Kern County Water Agency. (Beck Decl. ¶4).

129. If the SWP is shut down for 30 days, groundwater

pumping will ensue. (Beck Decl. ¶6).

130. The combined recovery capacity from groundwater

banking projects is limited to 800 cfs while local demand to KWA

is about 3,000 cfs. (Beck Decl. ¶6).

131. A loss of available water would reduce local

groundwater supplies to approximately 25% of the demand within

KWA being unmet. (Beck Decl. ¶6).

132. A minimum 10% reduction in crop yields will occur and

if the shut down continues for a longer period, the impact will

be significantly larger. 

133. Due to these constraints, Plaintiffs could not offer

evidence addressing Defendants’ hardship issues.

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 25 of 31
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

26

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A preliminary injunction is appropriate to protect a

party from irreparable harm and to preserve the Court’s power to

render a meaningful decision on the merits. Alabama v. U.S. Army

Corps of Eng’rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005).

2. In the Ninth Circuit, for injunctive relief, a

Plaintiff must demonstrate either (1) a likelihood of success on

the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the

existence of serious questions going to the merits and that the

balance of hardships tips in its favor. Fund for Animals, Inc.

v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992). The degree of

irreparable injury required increases as the probability of

success on the merits decreases. Dr. Seuss Enters. L.P. v.

Penguin Books, USA, 109 F.3d 1394, 1396 fn.1 (9th Cir. 1997).

3. Under the ESA, the balance of harms and consideration

of the public interest favors the protected species. Tennessee

Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 174 (1978); Friends of

the Earth v. Navy, 841 F.2d 927, 933 (9th Cir. 1988).

4. A plaintiff must still demonstrate a likelihood of

success on the merits as well as “reasonable likelihood” of

irreparable harm for ESA injunctive relief. National Wildlife

Fed’n v. Burlington N.R.R., 23 F.3d 1508, 1511 (9th Cir. 1994);

Nat’l Wildlife Fed. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 442 F.3d

782, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005).

5. As a matter of law, the court would be required to

enjoin the operation of the pumps at Jones and Banks pumping

plants (as part of the operation of the CVP and the SWP) if such

operation would extinguish the delta smelt (Hypomesus

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 26 of 31
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

27

transpacificus), a species listed as “threatened” under the

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).

6. The evidentiary record currently before the Court does

not support, by a preponderance of the evidence, a showing of

irreparable harm, the conclusion that the current operation of

the pumps would extinguish the Delta smelt as a species or the

conclusion that the Delta smelt would be extinguished if the

Court does not turn over all responsibility for its protection to

the Delta Smelt Working Group.

7. Due to the complexity of the facts and science

governing this dispute and the magnitude of risk and injury to

all parties, there has been insufficient time and notice for all

parties to prepare for, to present, and to oppose a preliminary

injunction motion.

8. Here, evidence based on the current record is sharply

in conflict as to whether: 

a. Reduced pumping will effectively prevent the

entrainment or further take of Delta smelt;

b. Under any CVP and SWP operating conditions, zero

flows (non-negative) can be achieved in Old and Middle River; 

c. Existing disputes can be resolved among the

scientists over the effectiveness a reduction in exports will

have to benefit the species in light of rising water temperatures

to lethal limits; 

d. Dispute over the whereabouts of the species can be

resolved and whether Delta smelt are in the Northwest area of the

Delta and Suisun Bay, out of harm’s way from the SWP and CVP

pumps; 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 27 of 31
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

28

e. Other causes, including but not limited to, other

water diversions; effect of ocean tides; presence of toxics;

absence of Delta smelt prey, and existence of non-native

predators, are materially causing decline in the species;

9. The balance of hardships to the species on the existing

record does not favor a TRO in the form sought, because, on the

one hand, the species is in grave jeopardy and threatened and, on

the other hand, severe pumping reductions will not effectively

result in the protection of the species when balanced against:

a. Potential catastrophic loss of water supplies to

urban users including, but not limited to, cities, fire

protection agencies, hospital and health providers, schools,

laboratories, and potable water supplies for human consumption;

b. Potential catastrophic loss of water supplies to

CVP and SWP contractors; 

c. Potential physical damage to the San Luis

Reservoir due to the gross reduction of its water supplies,

requiring taking the reservoir out of service for over one year;

and

d. Economic damage to crops grown by Defendant

Irrigation Contractors in the range of $23 million to potential 

losses approaching $1 billion.

10. There is legal uncertainty about the Court’s present

jurisdiction over the Bureau of Reclamation, the action agency, a

party against whom injunctive relief must necessarily be granted

for the injunction to be effective.

11. As a Bureau of the Department of the Interior, the

Bureau of Reclamation is the action agency within the meaning of

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 28 of 31
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

29

Federal law for ESA and Administrative Procedure Act purposes.

12. There is legal uncertainty over whether an effective

and timely 60-day ESA notice has been given to the Bureau of

Reclamation by Plaintiffs. 

13. There is legal uncertainty about the constitutional

ability of the Court in potential violation of the separation of

powers doctrine, to grant operating authority over the CVP to the

DSWG, a group of fishery biologists. 

14. The form of the order is so vague, overbroad, and

uncertain that it requires an agency of the United States

government to defer to and follow all the recommendations of the

DSWG, a group of fishery biologists, who are neither trained in

nor have competence in engineering, risk management, water

management, and the related disciplines that affect the

protection of health and safety and the human environment and

preservation of the infrastructure comprising CVP and SWP

facilities. 

CONCLUSION

As stated in open court, if the evidence was undisputed that

the species faces extinction due to the present operation of the

CVP and SWP, injunctive relief, in some form, would be required. 

However, there is substantial dispute about whether the operation

of the Project’s pumps throughout the summer months (JuneSeptember) is a material contributing cause to or will effectuate

the extinction of the smelt. Other reasons for the decline in

the smelt are offered by scientists and the historical migration

patterns of the smelt indicate that the majority of the

population should not now be in the vicinity of the pumps and at

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 29 of 31
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

30

risk of entrainment. 

Defendants have submitted voluminous competing evidence

alleging many severe hardships and risks to public health and

human safety. There has not been opportunity for in-depth

analysis of these alleged risks. 

Legal uncertainty regarding Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue

injunctive relief against the action agency has been raised on

approximately 24 hours notice.

The breadth and uncertainty of the form of the TRO is

legally infirm. The proposed order grants apparent unlimited

authority to a group of fishery biologists to control the

operations of two of the largest water projects in the world,

which deliver water to over 20 million people for municipal,

industrial, agricultural and other uses. The form of the

proposed order also raises constitutional concerns under the

Separation of Powers doctrine because it effectively results in

an encroachment by the judiciary on the operation, exercise of

discretion and policy of an agency of the Executive branch, the

United States Bureau of Reclamation. 

Based of all these uncertainties and in view of the

potential for hardships arising from deprivation of water south

of the Delta and diminishing water supplies which have the real

potential to cause substantial harm to health and safety in the

human environment, the motion for Temporary Restraining Order is

DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ application for a

preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 30 of 31
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

31

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 394 Filed 07/03/07 Page 31 of 31