Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00307-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, et al.,

 Defendants,

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, et al.,

 Intervenor-Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00307-DAD-SKO

ORDER RE STATUS OF PENDING 

MOTIONS

(Doc. Nos. 85, 90, 92) 

This case concerns approval by the United States Department of the Interior and its member 

agency, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (collectively, Federal Defendants or Reclamation), of 

six interim renewal contracts that authorized delivery of water from March 1, 2016, through February 

28, 2018, from federal reclamation facilities to certain water districts served by the Federal Central 

Valley Project (CVP) (2016–18 Interim Contracts). (Doc. No. 64, First Amended and Supplemental 

Complaint (FASC).) The 2016–18 Interim Contracts at issue in this case provided water service to 

Westlands Water District (Westlands), Santa Clara Valley Water District (Santa Clara), and Pajaro 

Valley Water Management Agency (Pajaro) (collectively, Interim Contractors). See FASC at ¶ 2. The 

2016–18 Interim Contracts are part of a long line of two-year interim contracts executed in recent years 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 117 Filed 03/30/20 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

27

28

2

to provide CVP water to contractors with expired long-term water service contracts, pending the 

anticipated execution of new long-term water service contracts after the completion of appropriate 

environmental review. See Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), Pub. L. No. 102-575, 

106 Stat. 4600 (1992), §§ 3402, 3404.

Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental organizations led by the North Coast Rivers Alliance, 

allege in the FASC’s first claim for relief that Federal Defendants issued a deficient Revised 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to 

approval of the 2016–18 Interim Contracts, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. 

(FASC at ¶¶ 45–65.) Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief asserts that Reclamation violated NEPA by 

failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the 2016–18 Interim Contracts. (Id. at 

¶¶ 56–59.) The latter claim was dismissed on March 9, 2018. (Doc. No. 78.) Currently pending before 

this court are cross-motions for summary judgment on the merits of certain aspects of the remaining 

claims in this case.

1

(Doc. Nos. 85, 90, 92.)

In late February 2019, the court requested input from the parties addressing the issue of 

mootness. Doc. Nos. 99 & 101. The backdrop for the court’s mootness inquiry included the Ninth 

Circuit’s ruling in Pacific Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Associations v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

655 F. App’x 595, 597 (9th Cir. 2016), in which that court held that challenges to interim contracts like 

those at issue in this case are not moot, even though the relevant contract period has expired, because 

“[t]he short duration and serial nature of Reclamation’s interim water contracts place plaintiffs’ claims 

within the mootness exception for disputes capable of repetition yet evading review.” Id. However, on 

March 12, 2019, in response to the court’s request for supplemental briefing, the United States revealed 

that Reclamation “no longer intends to pursue the issuance of new long-term water service contracts to 

Westlands under the authority of CVPIA § 3404. Rather, based on the authority and direction provided 

 

1 As mentioned in previous orders and as Reclamation points out (see Doc. No. 102 at 2), plaintiffs do 

not address the adequacy of the Santa Clara and Pajaro contracts in their motion for summary judgment

(Doc. No. 85-1), which, given that the remaining APA claim in this case is to be decided on crossmotions for summary judgment, renders any such claim abandoned as to the Santa Clara and Pajaro 

contracts. 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 117 Filed 03/30/20 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

27

28

3

in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements of the Nation (WIIN) Act, Pub. L. 114-322, § 4011, 

Reclamation intends to convert Westlands’ existing water service contracts into repayment contracts,” 

which, according to Reclamation, will not be “subject to the requirements of NEPA.” (Doc. No. 100 at 

¶¶ 3–4.) As of March 12, 2019, Reclamation indicated it could not be “certain when the WIIN Act 

conversion of any of Westlands’ contracts might be completed, except that Reclamation would need to 

complete any such conversion before the authority provided by the WIIN Act expires on December 16, 

2021.” (Id. at ¶ 5 (citing WIIN Act, § 4013).)

On March 19, 2019, pointing out that it has a sua sponte obligation to determine whether a case 

is moot, the court again requested additional information from Reclamation:

[Reclamation’s filing] raises more questions than it answers. The Court 

cannot tell whether Federal Defendants are being deliberately cryptic or 

whether the Court simply failed to make clear the underlying threshold 

jurisdictional question(s) that must be answered. This case already is 

technically moot because the 2016–18 Interim Contracts have expired. 

However, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Pacific Coast 

Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 655 

F. App’x 595, 597 (9th Cir. 2016), “[t]he short duration and serial nature 

of Reclamation’s interim water contracts place plaintiffs’ claims within 

the mootness exception for disputes capable of repetition yet evading 

review.” What the Court needs information on now is whether this 

mootness exception still applies to the contracts at issue in this case. Even 

though Federal Defendants do not appear to be encouraging the Court to 

revisit the matter, mootness is a jurisdictional issue the Court must 

nonetheless address sua sponte. Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 

F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (raising sua sponte mootness and the 

capable of repetition yet evading review exception because it is a question 

of subject matter jurisdiction); see also Ackley v. W. Conference of 

Teamsters, 958 F.2d 1463, 1469 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is the defendant, not 

the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that the alleged wrong will not 

recur.”). “A mere speculative possibility of repetition is not sufficient. 

There must be a cognizable danger, a reasonable expectation, of 

recurrence for the repetition branch of the mootness exception to be 

satisfied.” Williams v. Alioto, 549 F.2d 136, 143 (9th Cir. 1977).

(Doc. No. 101 at 3 (emphasis in original).)

In response, in April 2019, the United States outlined the anticipated process under the WIIN Act 

for converting long-term water service contracts (pursuant to which a contractor pays service charges to 

Reclamation every year over a fixed term) into repayment contracts (pursuant to which the contractor 

will repay remaining construction costs associated with water deliveries either in a lump sum or in equal 

installments over a period not to exceed three years). (Doc. No. 102 at ¶ 7.) Since that time, the court 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 117 Filed 03/30/20 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

27

28

4

has received several additional updates from the parties, the latest of which indicates that Reclamation 

and Westlands signed a primary water service contract under the WIIN Act on February 28, 2020. (Doc. 

No. 116-1 at ¶ 8.) Five other Westlands’ WIIN Act contracts are being prepared for signature but, as of 

early March 2020, had not yet been executed. (Id.) Because of these outstanding contracts and because 

the primary contract does not take effect until June 1, 2020, Reclamation issued a NEPA document 

related to the 2020–2022 interim renewal contract. (Id.) However, once Westlands’ WIIN Act contracts 

come into effect, according to Reclamation, that NEPA document will no longer be applicable. (Id.)

As the court has previously noted, it now faces a difficult dilemma. Plaintiffs’ claim, which 

concerns a significant federal water service contract, is not yet technically moot. However, all signs 

continue to lead the court to believe that the issues to be adjudicated here may well be rendered moot in 

the very near future. At the same time, this court is facing an extraordinary shortage of resources, made 

worse by the current public health crisis gripping our nation and seriously impacting the operation of the 

courts. See U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, General Orders 611 and 612. In 

light of these factors, the court will continue to hold the pending cross motions for summary judgment in 

abeyance. 

To ease the resource burden on the parties, the court’s prior order (Doc. No. 110) requiring status 

reports every thirty (30) days is modified as follows: The United States shall file a brief status report 

every sixty (60) days, or within fourteen (14) days of any party believing the current trajectory of WIIN 

act conversions has materially changed. Upon receipt of each status report, the court will sua sponte

reconsider its position on the pending cross motions for summary judgment. Meanwhile, the Clerk of 

Court is directed to administratively terminate the pending motions (Doc. Nos. 85, 90 and 92). The 

court will notify the parties if and when it determines that it is appropriate to rule on those motions or 

whether it will require further briefing from the parties addressing the issue of mootness. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 117 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 4