Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00307-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE, 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE, PACIFIC COAST 

FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S 

ASSOCIATIONS, SAN FRANCISCO CRAB 

BOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and 

INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, and UNITED STATES BUREAU 

OF RECLAMATION,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-00307 LJO MJS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER GRANTING WESTLANDS, 

SAN LUIS, AND PANOCHE WATER 

DISTRICTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION 

TO INTERVENE (Doc.18)

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

This suit concerns the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s (“Reclamation”) Environmental 

Assessment (“EA”) and Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) adopted for six water service 

contracts. The project, known as the Central Valley Project Interim Renewal Contract for Westlands 

Water District, Santa Clara Water District, and Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency 2016-2018 

(“interim contracts”), authorizes two years of water delivery from Reclamation’s Central Valley Project 

(“CVP”) to the interim contractors. North Coast Rivers Alliance, California Sportfishing Protection 

Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners 

Association, Inc., and Institute for Fisheries Resources (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that 

Reclamation’s EA and FONSI violate the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4321, because the EA and FONSI lack meaningful environmental review and erroneously conclude 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 6
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

2

that the interim contracts will have no effect on the environment. Doc. 2.

Plaintiffs name as defendants in this action the United States Department of the Interior

(“Interior”), and Reclamation, the federal agency within Interior charged with managing the CVP and 

approving CVP contracts (collectively, “Federal Defendants”).

On May 20, 2016, Westlands Water District (“Westlands”), San Luis Water District, and 

Panoche Water District (collectively, “Applicants”) moved to intervene in this matter as of right or in 

the alternative for permissive intervention. Doc. 18. Federal Defendants do not oppose Applicants’ 

intervention. Doc. 20. 

II. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT.

A. Applicants. 

Westlands is a California water district that contracts with Reclamation to receive water through 

the CVP. Declaration of Jose Gutierrez, Doc. 18-2, at ¶ 2. It is a party to several of the contracts 

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin. Doc. 18-1, at 2. Westlands services an area of approximately 600,000 acres on 

the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno and Kings Counties. Doc. 18-2, at ¶ 2. Its total 

contractual entitlement from the CVP under the interim renewal contract is 1,195,383 acre feet (“AF”)

per year. Id. at ¶ 10. Westlands allocates water to more than 600 family-owned farms within its service 

area. Id. at ¶ 3.

San Luis Water District is located on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley near the City of 

Los Banos, in both Merced and Fresno Counties. Declaration of Lon Martin, Doc. 18-3 at ¶ 2. San Luis 

Water Districts’ only long-term water supply for the 64,000 acres within its service area is made 

available through contracts with Reclamation that are substantially similar to the contracts at issue. The 

CVP provides a maximum of 125,080 AF per year to the San Luis Water District from the DeltaMendota Canal (“DMC”) and San Luis Canal (“SLC”). Id. The District does not own any groundwater 

wells and has no other long-term contracts for surface water or groundwater supplies. Id. at ¶ 4.

Panoche Water District is also located on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley in both 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Merced and Fresno Counties. It contracts with Reclamation to receive a maximum of 94,000 AF of CVP 

water per year supplied by the DMC or SLC through contracts with Reclamation that are substantially 

similar to the contracts at issue. Declaration of Dennis Falaschi, Doc. 18-4, at ¶ 3. Panoche also has a 

water supply contract with the Central California Irrigation District and Firebaugh Canal Water District, 

which provides 3,000 acre feet per year in supplemental water to Panoche through 2033. The purpose of 

the supplemental contract is to respond to anticipated and ongoing shortages in the CVP contract supply. 

Id. at ¶ 4. The supplemental contract does not increase total water deliveries within Panoche above 

94,000 acre feet. Id.

Applicants move to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, to permissively intervene. 

B. Intervention as of Right.

1. Legal Standard.

Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. To intervene as a matter of right 

under Rule 24(a)(2), an applicant must claim an interest, the protection of which may, as a practical 

matter, be impaired or impeded if the lawsuit proceeds without the applicant. Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 24(a) liberally, in 

favor of intervention, and requires a district court to “take all well-pleaded, nonconclusory allegations in 

the motion . . . as true absent sham, frivolity or other objections.” S.W. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 

Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). A four-part test is used to evaluate a motion for intervention of 

right: 

(1) the motion must be timely; 

(2) the applicant must claim a “significantly protectable” interest 

relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; 

(3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action 

may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that 

interest; and 

(4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the 

parties to the action. 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Wilderness Soc., 630 F.3d at 1177.

2. Timeliness.

In assessing timeliness, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider: (1) the current stage of the 

proceedings; (2) whether the existing parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for any delay in 

moving to intervene. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 

1997). Applicants moved to intervene on May 20, 2016, approximately a month and a half before the 

July 8, 2016 deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint. Therefore, there can be no debate that 

the motion is timely.

3. Significant Protectable Interests/Impairment of Interests.

Here, it is practical to treat the third and fourth factors together. To demonstrate a “significantly 

protectable interest,” a prospective intervenor must establish that “the interest [asserted] is protectable 

under some law, and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at 

issue.” S.W. Ctr., 268 F.3d at 818. Finally, intervention of right is only appropriate where disposition of 

this action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede Applicants’ abilities to protect their interests. 

This requirement demands only a showing that the applicant “would be substantially affected in a 

practical sense by the determination made in an action.” Id. at 822.

In the present action, Reclamation and Westlands are contracting parties to several of the interim 

contracts Plaintiffs challenge. Westlands has contracted for nearly 1,200,000 AF of water annually. Doc. 

18-2, at ¶ 10. San Luis Water and Panoche Water Districts likewise contract with Reclamation through 

interim renewal contracts for water deliveries similar to Westlands’ contracts. Doc. 18-3, at ¶ 3; Doc. 

18-4, at ¶ 3. Should Plaintiffs prevail, Applicants’ interim renewal contracts providing for water delivery 

may be invalidated. Applicants possess contractually protected interests in deliveries from the CVP. In 

light of the potential adverse consequences to Applicants’ interests if Plaintiffs obtain the relief they 

seek, the Court concludes that Applicants have satisfied the third and fourth prongs of the intervention 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 06/14/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

as of right test.

4. Existing Parties’ Ability to Represent Applicants’ Interests.

The remaining issue is whether Applicants’ interests are adequately protected by other parties. In 

assessing the adequacy of representation, the Ninth Circuit looks at three factors:

(1) whether the existing parties will undoubtedly make all of the applicant’s arguments;

(2) whether the existing parties are capable of and willing to make the applicant’s arguments; 

and

(3) whether the applicant offers a necessary element to the proceedings that otherwise would 

be neglected.

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he requirement of inadequacy of 

representation is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of its interests may be inadequate

and that the burden of making this showing is minimal.” Sagebrush Rebellion Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 

525, 528 (9th Cir. 1983). 

It is “well-settled precedent in this circuit” that “[w]here an applicant for intervention and an 

existing party have the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises.” 

League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 131 F.3d at 1305. This presumption is triggered here because 

Applicants and Federal Defendants share a similar objective of upholding Reclamation’s interim 

renewal contracts with contracting parties. However, the presumption is rebuttable upon a showing that 

the applicant and the existing parties “do not have sufficiently congruent interests.” S.W. Ctr., 268 F.3d 

at 823.

Applicants’ interests diverge from existing Federal Defendants, who, as operators of the entire 

CVP, have responsibilities to protect multiple interests. See Georgia v. United States Army Corps of 

Eng’rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1259 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding federal defendant with interest in management of 

a resource did not have interests identical to an entity with economic interests in the use of that 

resource). Moreover, Applicants are particularly concerned that imposing additional constraints upon 

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 06/14/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Reclamation’s discretion would increase the likelihood that Reclamation would impose shortages upon 

Applicants, a concern that, while assuredly shared by Reclamation, is not of equal import to or impact 

upon Reclamation itself.

Applicants satisfy all of the requirements for intervention as a matter of right. It is not necessary 

to address Applicants’ alternative request for permissive intervention. 

III. CONCLUSION

Applicants’ motion to intervene as a defendant as a matter of right is GRANTED, conditioned 

upon strictly limiting their participation solely to issues about which they can provide non-repetitive, 

unique information and/or arguments.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00307-JLT-SKO Document 21 Filed 06/14/16 Page 6 of 6