Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01207-3/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 A coalition of irrigation districts, led by the GlennColusa Irrigation District, whose members hold senior rights to

divert waters of the Sacramento river (the “Settlement

Contractors”), also moved to intervene. (Doc. 143, filed Nov.4,

2005.) Plaintiffs stipulated to their intervention a few days

before the December 12, 2005 hearing date. (Doc. 158, filed Dec.

9, 2005.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE

COUNCIL, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

GALE A. NORTON, in her official

capacity as Secretary of the

Interior, et al., 

 Defendants.

1:05-CV-01207 OWW TAG

ORDER GRANTING CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF WATER

RESOURCES’ MOTION TO

INTERVENE (DOC. 137)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, a coalition of environmental groups, challenge

the legal validity of a Biological Opinion issued by the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) concerning the

coordinated operation of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and

State Water Project (“SWP”). Before the court for decision is a

motion to intervene filed by the California Department of Water

Resources (“DWR”).1 (Doc. 137, filed Oct. 12, 2005.) Plaintiffs

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 25
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

oppose. (Doc. 142, filed Nov. 14, 2005.) Existing intervenor

defendants have filed statements of non-opposition to DWR’s

intervention. (Docs. 149, 150.) The Federal Defendants have

filed no documents pertaining to the pending motions, but counsel

has indicated that Federal Defendants take no position on the

issue of intervention. 

On September 6, 2005, this case was transferred to this

court from the Northern District of California. (Doc. 122.) 

Prior to the transfer, United States District Judge Claudia

Wilken decided three motions to intervene, filed by: the San Luis

& Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District

(collectively the “Authority”)(Doc. 5, filed March 14, 2005); the

California Farm Bureau Federation (“Farm Bureau”) (Doc. 19, filed

March 30, 2005); and the State Water Contractors (“SWC”) (Doc.

27, filed Apr. 8, 2005). Judge Wilken granted the Authority and

Farm Bureau’s motions, but denied SWC’s on the ground that SWC’s

interest “will be adequately represented by the Authority and the

Farm Bureau.” (Doc. 45 at 11, filed June 13, 2005.) SWC has

appealed this decision and briefing before the Ninth Circuit is

ongoing. If the court is inclined to grant either or both of

these motions to intervene, Plaintiffs request that any such

decision be put off until the Ninth Circuit has an opportunity to

decide the pending appeal. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 25
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 A typical Delta smelt will live for only one year and

spend its entire lifespan in the Delta. 

3

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Central Valley Project, the State Water Project,

and the California Bay Delta.

This case concerns the coordinated operation of the

federally-managed Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and the State of

California’s State Water Project (“SWP”). The CVP alone is one

of the largest water projects in the world, managing annually

approximately nine million acre-feet of water. (Compl. at ¶25.)

The CVP managed by the United States Department of the Interior’s

Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau”) under licenses from the

California State Water Board. The SWP, the largest state-built

water project in the country, is managed by the California

Department of Water Resources (“DWR”). (Johns Decl. at ¶4.) 

Both projects divert large volumes of water from the California

Bay Delta (“Delta”) and use the Delta to store water. The CVP,

for example, operates the Tracy Pumping Plant, which draws

billions of gallons of water per year out of the Delta and into

the Delta-Mendota Canal. (Compl. at ¶25.) The SWP operates

diversion facilities in both the southern and northern Delta,

which divert water into the California Aqueduct (for distribution

to the San Joaquin Valley and points south) and the North Bay

Aquaduct (for distribution to Napa and Solano counties). 

The Delta, from which these CVP and SWP facilities draw

water, is home to a number of endangered and threatened species,

including the endangered delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus),

a small, slender-bodied fish endemic to the Delta.2

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 25
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

Historically, the Delta smelt could be found throughout the

Delta, but the population has declined significantly in recent

years. (Compl. at ¶20.)

B. Coordinated Operations and The Endangered Species Act.

The state and federal agencies charged with management of

the CVP and SWP share certain facilities and coordinate

operations with one another pursuant to a Coordinated Operating

Agreement (“COA”). (Johns Decl. at ¶6.) The COA, which

originated in 1986, has evolved over time to reflect, among other

things, changing facilities, delivery requirements, and

regulatory restrictions. The most recent document concerning

coordinated management is the Operating Criteria and Plan (OCAP). 

The OCAP proposes a number of changes to the coordinated

operation of the CVP and SWP, some of which are discussed in

greater detail below.

 Because the Delta smelt and a number of other endangered

and/or threatened species reside in the area affected by the CVP

and SWP, any coordinated management plan, including the OCAP, 

must comply with various provisions of the Endangered Species Act

(“ESA”). Specifically, prior to authorizing, funding, or

carrying out any action, a federal agency must first consult with

USFWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries’ Service (“NMFS”) to

“insure that [the] action...is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered species or threatened

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

habitat of such species which is determined...to be critical....”

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) [ESA § 7(a)(2)]. (This form of

consultation is called “formal consultation.” 50 C.F.R. 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 25
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

§ 402.02.) In addition, an independent consultation obligation

arises under § 1536(a)(3) where the federal agency “has reason to

believe that an endangered species or a threatened species may be

present in the area affected by this project and that

implementation of such action will likely affect such species.” 

(This form of consultation is called “early consultation.” 50

C.F.R. § 402.02.) 

In this case, the Bureau entered into formal and early

consultation with the USFWS concerning the OCAP. The

consultation process resulted in the issuance by the USFWS of a

Biological Opinion (“BiOp”) on June 30, 2004 (the “2004 OCAP

BiOp”).

On August 4, 2005, the Ninth Circuit decided Gifford Pinchot

Task Force v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 378 F.3d 1059,

1069 (9th Cir. 2004), which held that the USFWS’s definition of

“adverse modification” to critical habitat is an impermissible

interpretation of the ESA because it focuses on whether critical

habitat modifications would impact the survival of a species,

effectively ignoring the statutorily-mandated goal of “recovery.”

In November 4, 2004, presumably in response to this ruling, the

Bureau requested reinitiation of formal consultation to address

critical habitat issues.

Plaintiffs, a coalition of non-profit conservation

organizations, filed suit on February 15, 2005, alleging that the

2004 OCAP BiOp is legally inadequate in light of Gifford Pinchot

and should be invalidated. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs named as

defendants the Department of the Interior and the USFWS. (Id.) 

On February 16, 2005, USFWS issued an amended BiOp (the

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 5 of 25
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

“OCAP BiOp”), which superceded the 2004 OCAP BiOp. In this

document, the USFWS asserts that it relied on statutory

provisions of the ESA, not on the regulatory definition of

adverse modification invalidated in Gifford Pinchot. 

C. Issues Addressed by the OCAP BiOp.

The OCAP BiOp addresses current-day operations of the CVP

and SWP as well as several future actions. These future actions,

some of which are discussed in greater detail below, are: 

(1) increasing flows in the Trinity River; (2) “8500 Banks”; 

(3) operating permanent barriers in the South Delta; 

(4) operating an intertie between the California Aqueduct and the

Delta-Mendota Canal; (5) a long-term Environmental Water Account

(“EWA”); (6) delivery of CVP water to the Freeport Regional Water

Project (“FRWP”); and (7) various other operational changes,

including changes to a monitoring program at the North Bay

Aqueduct. (OCAP BiOp at 10; 76-77.) 

A number of the proposed future actions discussed in the

OCAP BiOp are important to applicant DWR. Two of these proposed

changes, “8500 Banks” and the operation of permanent barriers in

the South Delta, relate to the proposed South Delta Improvement

Project (“SDIP”), which has as its stated goal the improvement of

water supply reliability. (Doc 137, Attch. 1, Johns Decl. at

¶14.) As part of SDIP, DWR proposes to (a) increase the average

diversion rate at its Clifton Court Forebay from the present rate

to 8500 cubic feet per second and (b) increase pumping at the

Banks Pumping Plant into the California Aqueduct. (Collectively,

these changes are known as “8500 Banks”.) In addition, SDIP

proposes the operation of four permanent gates (also referred to

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 6 of 25
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 See http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/

EnvironmentalWaterAccount/FactSheet.htm (last visited on December

7, 2005). 

7

as “barriers”) in the southern Delta for the protection of water

quality and fishery resources. 

The OCAP BiOp also addresses a related program: the

Environmental Water Account (“EWA”). The EWA “buys water from

willing sellers or diverts surplus water when safe for fish, then

banks, stores, transfers and releases it as needed to protect

fish and compensate water users.”3 The State of California has

been far more involved (both operationally and financially) in

the EWA than has the Bureau. For example, for the water years

2001-2005, the total cost for acquiring water under the EWA was

$165.8 million. The State of California provided $144.3 million,

or 87% of total funding. (Johns Decl. at ¶10.) Currently, the

EWA has been extended through the end of 2007, but DWR and the

Bureau are considering extending the program over a longer period

of time. (This extension beyond 2007 is referred to as the

“long-term EWA”.) (Id. at ¶11.) 

Finally, DWR highlights one additional operational change

addressed by the OCAP BiOp: proposed changes to the Delta smelt

monitoring protocol utilized at the North Bay Aqueduct (“NBA”)

intake at Barker Slough. According to the OCAP BiOp, the

“present NBA monitoring program is not very effective for the

management of smelt” in part because data from the past nine

years of monitoring show that catch of Delta smelt in Barker

Slough has been “consistently very low.” (OCAP BiOp at 77.) The

DSWG has recommended the implementation, on a pilot basis, of an

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 7 of 25
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

alternative sampling approach that would use different equipment

and different seasonal start and stop dates. DWR has already

begun using this new monitoring protocol.

DWR and the Bureau are currently preparing a joint

environmental document analyzing the SDIP under the California

Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental

Policy Act (“NEPA”) and a separate document covering the possible

implementation of a long-term EWA. (Kelly Decl. at ¶3.) The

OCAP BiOp ostensibly provides early consultation coverage under

the ESA for these two programs. 

The OCAP BiOp concludes that the coordinated operation of

the SWP and CVP, including the proposed future actions, will not

jeopardize the Delta smelt’s continued existence. (OCAP BiOp at

223.) Although the OCAP BiOp recognizes that existing protective

measures may be inadequate, the USFWS concluded that certain

proposed protective measures, including the EWA and a proposed

“adaptive management” protocol would provide adequate protection. 

The proposed adaptive management protocol is known as the Delta

Smelt Risk Assessment Matrix (“DSRAM”). The DSRAM utilizes a

list of trigger criteria monitored on a monthly basis from

December to July. (Id. at 98-103.) If any trigger criteria is

met or exceeded, a Delta Smelt Working Group (“DSWG”) is

convened. The DSWG consists of representatives from USFWS, the

California Department of Fish and Game, DWR, the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau, and the California

Bay-Delta Authority. The DSWG then recommends corrective actions

to a Water Operations Management Team (“WOMT”). The OCAP BiOp

identifies four specific actions that the DSWG and WOMT must

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 8 of 25
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

consider: (1) export reductions at one or both of the projects;

(2) changes in the south Delta barrier operations; (3) changes in

San Joaquin River flows; and (4) changes in the operation of the

Delta cross channel. 

Finally, the OCAP BiOp also includes an incidental take

statement that insulates operations implemented according to the

OCAP from liability for taking Delta smelt. (OCAP BiOp at 223.)

D. The Claims in this Case.

Plaintiffs filed a First Supplemental Complaint on May 20,

2005, which modified the central claims in the case in light of

the 2005 OCAP BiOp. The substantive allegations are succinctly

summarized in Paragraphs 30 through 34:

30. The Biological Opinion states baldly that [USFWS]

relied on the statutory provisions of the ESA and not

the regulatory definition of adverse modification when

reaching its conclusions. However, this statement is

not supported by any new analysis or by the few changes

made to the original biological opinion, and no new

definition of adverse modification is provided or

applied.

31. In reaching a “no jeopardy” conclusion, the

Biological Opinion relies heavily on certain existing

or potential future protective measures, the adequacy

of which has not been demonstrated, and several of

which may not be implemented in the form assumed by the

Biological Opinion or at all. The Bureau has a long

history of disregarding or violating such protective

measures. For example, the Bureau failed to

consistently meet the conservation obligations agreed

upon in the biological opinions for the Friant Unit

long- and short-term renewal contracts. In addition, in

multiple years since the endangered Sacramento River

winter-run Chinook salmon and the threatened delta

smelt were listed under the ESA, the Bureau and the

California Department of Water Resources have operated

the CVP and SWP in such a way that the ESA-mandated

incidental take limits for both species have been

exceeded.

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 9 of 25
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

32. Among other defects, the Biological Opinion assumes

benefits to the delta smelt from future, long-term

implementation of an Environmental Water Account (EWA).

The Environmental Water Account as it presently exists

is a water redistribution program that maintains

exports to entities with contracts for water from the

Delta when protections for delta smelt or certain other

species are put into effect. At the time the original

biological opinion was signed, however, the thenexisting EWA was scheduled to expire by September 2004.

Although both the original and the revised Biological

Opinion assume a future EWA, the Biological Opinion

also states that “inclusion of the EWA in this

description does not constitute a decision on future

implementation of the EWA.” See Biological Opinion at

84. Any benefits to delta smelt from any long-term EWA

are, at best, speculative. Moreover, the Biological

Opinion’s characterization of the EWA does not agree

with the description provided by the Bureau in the June

30, 2004 OCAP when consultation with the Service was

requested.

33. Recognizing that assumed protective measures may be

inadequate and, indeed, may not even be fully carried

out, the Biological Opinion provides for an “adaptive

management” process under which the Bureau and certain

fisheries management agencies would discuss and

potentially agree to further changes in the CVP

operations that affect delta smelt through an “adaptive

management” process. However, the Biological Opinion

does not provide any assurance of any particular level

of protection for the delta smelt as a result of this

promise of future “adaptive management.”

34. The Biological Opinion’s adaptive management

process involves the use of a so-called “Delta Smelt

Risk Assessment Matrix” as a decision-making tool

intended to be used by a Working Group to monitor the

effects of the CVP and SWP on the delta smelt. The

Matrix is a tool to identify when delta smelt may be

negatively affected by a project and to suggest

possible management strategies. The Biological Opinion

generally requires that the Working Group be informed

should the triggering conditions be met. However, the

Biological Opinion does not require that the Working

Group, or the Bureau, take any particular action if a

triggering condition occurs. No particular level of

protection for delta smelt or its critical habitat is

ensured.

(emphasis added)

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 10 of 25
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

E. Prior Motions to Intervene.

In March and April 2005, three sets of parties moved to

intervene: the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and

Westlands Water District (collectively the “Authority”) (Doc. 5);

the California Farm Bureau Federation (“Farm Bureau”) (Doc. 19);

and the State Water Contractors (“SWC”) (Doc. 27). On June 13,

2005, prior to transferring the case Judge Wilken granted the

Authority and Farm Bureau’s motions, but denied SWC’s on the

ground that SWC’s interests “will be adequately represented by

the Authority and the Farm Bureau.” (Doc. 45 at 11.) In

reaching this decision, Judge Wilken examined the applicants’

interests:

Authority has thirty-two member water agencies that

contract with the United States for water supply from

the CVP. Loss of water supplies from the CVP would

adversely impact the regions the members serve.

Additionally, Authority is subject to direct regulation

under the terms of the disputed OCAPBiOp because it

operates various CVP facilities. The Farm Bureau is

composed of fifty-three county bureaus with 89,000

private members, over 50,000 of whom rely on contracted

supplies of either CVP or SWP water for agricultural

purposes. The SWC has twenty-seven public agencies as

members, all of whom receive water from the SWP. All

Applicants have an interest in continued sources of

affordable supplies of water. Applicants and their

members have participated in regulatory and judicial

processes relating to the Bay-Delta waterways.

(Id. at 4.) Judge Wilken reasoned that

The central issue of this case is the validity of the

OCAPBiOp and its analysis with regard to the delta

smelt. The amounts of water received by each Applicant,

how that water is used and where it comes from are not

at issue in this case. Even if they were, Authority

will represent the interests of CVP water users, and

Farm Bureau will represent the interests of SWP water

users. Authority will represent public water agencies’

interests and Farm Bureau will represent individual

consumers’ interests. SWC and Authority share counsel.

SWC's interests as a public agency and user of SWP

water are thus adequately represented by existing

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 11 of 25
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

parties. The fact that SWC and Farm Bureau are on

opposing sides in independent litigation concerning the

Environmental Water Account (EWA) and its possible

impact on the distribution of SWP water in the OCAP is

inapposite because the EWA and distribution of SWP

water are not at issue here. Therefore, SWC may not

intervene as of right.

(Id. at 8-9.) SWC has appealed this determination. (Doc. 113,

filed Aug. 8, 2005; NRDC v. Norton, No. 05-16581 (9th Cir. filed

Sept. 29, 2005).) Plaintiffs request that this court apply a

similar analysis to the pending motions to intervene. In the

alternative, Plaintiffs request that the district court defer

ruling on the pending motions until the Ninth Circuit has taken

action on SWC’s appeal. (Doc. 142, Opp’n to DWR’s Mot., at 7.)

The moving party, DWR, is the state agency charged with

management and operation of the SWP. As described above, DWR

operates a number of facilities discussed in the OCAP BiOp and

has proposed a number of actions addressed by the OCAP BiOp. It

is a joint contractor with the Bureau in managing some operations

of the CVP.

III. DISCUSSION

A. 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. Forest Conservation Council v.

United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 24(a) liberally, in favor of

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 12 of 25
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

intervention, and requires a district court to “take all wellpleaded, non-conclusory allegations in the motion as true absent

sham, frivolity or other objections.” Southwest 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. 

Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1493.

2. Timeliness; Significant Protectable Interests;

Impairment of Interests.

Plaintiffs have not disputed that DWR satisfies the first

three elements for intervention of right.

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). In this

case, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on February 15,

2005. (Doc. 1.) The Authority, the Farm Bureau, and the SWC,

filed motions to intervene in March 2005. Plaintiffs filed a

First Supplemental Complaint on May 20, 2005. (Doc. 40.) A

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 13 of 25
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

decision on the motions to intervene issued June 13, 2005. (Doc.

45.) The administrative record was filed July 25, 2005. On

September 6, 2005, the action was transferred to the Eastern

District. An initial scheduling conference is set for February

8, 2006. The district court has not yet made any jurisdictional

or merits rulings in this case. The existing parties are not

prejudiced when “the motion was filed before the district court

made any substantive rulings.” Northwest Forest Resource Council

v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1996). The motion to

intervene is timely.

To demonstrate a “significantly protectable interest,” “a

prospective intervenor must establish that (1) the interest

asserted is protectable under some law, and (2) there is a

relationship between the legally protected interest and the

claims at issue.” Id. A prospective intervenor has a sufficient

interest “where the contractual rights of the applicant may be

affected by a proposed remedy.” Forest Conservation Council, 66

F.3d at 1495. Here, among other remedies, Plaintiffs seek to

have the OCAP BiOp declared invalid and request injunctive relief

to prevent the defendants “from taking any action in reliance on

the invalid Biological Opinion.” Either of these remedies would

affect “significant protectable interests” of the DWR in its

operation of the SWP and responsibilities for coordination of the

CVP. For example, the incidental take statement contained within

the OCAP BiOp provides DWR with immunity from liability under the

ESA’s take provisions, should DWR’s operation of the SWP result

in take of the Delta smelt. Paragraph 31 of the complaint

alleges that DWR has operated the SWP in such a way that the ESACase 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 14 of 25
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

mandated incidental take limits for both species have been

exceeded. This means that, in addition to injunctive relief, DWR

is also subject to potential criminal liability. It is hard to

formulate a more direct, specific, and non-representative

interest a perspective intervenor could have. No one but the DWR

operates the SWP. No party other than the DWR can adequately

represent that operator interest.

Finally, DWR can demonstrate that disposition of this action

may impair or impede its ability to protect its 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.” Southwest Ctr. for Biodiversity, 268 F.3d at

822. If the OCAP is invalidated, among other things, DWR may be

exposed to liability for unlawfully taking Delta smelt. 

Similarly, injunctive relief may have differing effects upon the

various facilities governed by the OCAP. Accordingly, DWR will

be substantially affected in a practical sense by any injunctive

relief issued in this action and faces potential criminal

liability for its actions or inactions in SWP management. The

practical implications for DWR’s separate operations of the SWP

are not representative of nor are they synonymous with the

practical impact upon the Bureau in its role as operator and

manager of the SVP. 

3. Adequate Representation of DWR’s Interest by

Existing Parties.

The crux of this dispute is whether DWR’s interests are

adequately protected by other defendants or defendantCase 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 15 of 25
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

intervenors. 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. 

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823. 

“[T]he requirement of inadequacy of representation is satisfied

if the applicant shows that representation of its interests may

be inadequate....[T]he 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, Plaintiffs argue, because DWR

and the Federal Defendants share the ultimate objective of

upholding the validity of the OCAP BiOP. See id. (ultimate

objective of upholding validity of a law shared by state

defendants and prospective intervenor, a political interestgroup). However, the presumption is rebuttable upon a showing

that the applicant and the existing parties “do not have

sufficiently congruent interests.” Southwest Center for

Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823.

DWR suggests that its interests diverge from the federal

defendants’ in several respects. First, DWR submits that the

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 16 of 25
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 Finally, DWR asserts that neither the Authority nor the

Farm Bureau hold water supply contracts with the State Water

Project, and as such their party status does not adequately

represent DWR’s unique interests. This appears to be an

incorrect, or at least misleading, assertion. Plaintiffs

17

federal defendants will not adequately represent its interests in

the two components of the SDIP: 8500 Banks and the creation of

permanent barriers in the Southern Delta. These proposed actions

involve only SWP facilities. The federal defendants may be

“affected” by a change in the proposed actions, but have no

responsibility for these SWP operations. The state has provided

the bulk of funding for SDIP-related environmental compliance

efforts and DWR will be solely responsible for implementation. 

The federal defendants have no such interests.

Second, DWR argues that it has a unique interest in a longterm EWA. DWR has been far more involved in the EWA than has the

Bureau. Almost all of the operational curtailments for the EWA,

intended to afford additional protection for fish, have been

provided by DWR. The invalidation of the OCAP BiOp, which

provides early consultation coverage for the long-term EWA, would

have a disproportionate impact upon DWR, not shared by the

Bureau. 

Third because the North Bay Aqueduct is a SWP operation, the

federal defendants have no direct management interest in the

Aqueduct and cannot adequately represent DWR’s interest in

defending operational modifications (including the elimination of

certain monitoring requirements) applicable to the North Bay

Aqueduct set forth in the OCAP BiOp. DWR apparently has already

shifted to the new monitoring approach set forth in the OCAP

BiOp.4

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 17 of 25
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

maintain that the Farm Bureau represents 89,000 farmers, some of

whom do receive water from the SWP. Nevertheless, even if the

Farm Bureau does represent SWP water users, DWR’s interests, as

an operator and adverse contracting party, are not identical to

those of water users. A state agency has a broader duty to

comply with environmental laws and to balance other interests. 

See Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823

(acknowledging argument that a city might have a broader range of

interests and responsibilities than does a private developer). 

18

Plaintiffs rejoin by arguing that none of these “unique

interests” are called into issue by the claims in the complaint. 

Plaintiffs summarize their five central claims as follows: 

The complaint alleges that the OCAP BO, which concludes

that CVP-SWP operations pursuant to the OCAP will

neither jeopardize the continued existence of the Delta

smelt nor result in the destruction or adverse

modification of its critical habitat, is legally

inadequate in five respects:

(1) The BO failed to consider adequately how the OCAP

would affect Delta smelt critical habitat’s value

for recovery of the species;

(2) the conclusions of the BO are unsupported by the

record; 

(3) the BO improperly relied on uncertain future

mitigation measures and a promise of “adaptive

management” but failed to provide adequate

evidence that such mitigation measures would in

fact be taken and be effective, and to identify

concrete actions that would ensure that future

“adaptive management” would be sufficient to

ensure protection of the Delta smelt and its

critical habitat; 

(4) the BO failed properly to define the agency action

or to consider the effects of the action, thereby

significantly underestimating or ignoring the

effects of the entire agency action; and 

(5) the BO failed to consider the best available

scientific information regarding the Delta smelt.

First Supplemental Complaint at ¶¶ 51-56.

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 18 of 25
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 Plaintiffs also note that the Bureau, not DWR, was the

primary force behind the OCAP BiOp, but this is not legally

significant. The intervention of state agencies is favored, as

they are presumed to represent the citizens of the state. See

Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1, 21 (1983). 

19

(Doc. 152 at 5-6.) Plaintiffs also suggest that “matters of

remedy are distant and uncertain at this point in the

litigation....” (Id. at 6.)5

Plaintiffs arguments are unconvincing in two respects. 

First, by Plaintiffs’ own description, their third central legal

argument is a challenge to the DSRAM adaptive management process. 

The DSRAM directly implicates several programs in which DWR has

unique management interests, and actions taken in accordance with

DSRAM could modify state project operations over which DWR has

sole responsibility. For example, if any of the trigger criteria

under the DSRAM are met or exceeded, the protocal calls for the

convening of the Delta Smelt Working Group (“DSWG”). The DSWG is

supposed to then recommend corrective actions to the Water

Operations Management Team (“WOMT”). The OCAP BiOp identifies

four specific actions that the DSWG and WOMT must consider: 

(1) export reductions at one or both of the projects; (2) changes

in the south Delta barrier operations; (3) changes in San Joaquin

River flows; and (4) changes in the operation of the Delta cross

channel. DWR is the agency with sole operational authority over

any south Delta barrier. The OCAP Biop serves as early

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 19 of 25
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 Although Forest Conservation Council applies this

“practical matter” language in the context of the third element

(“practical impairment”) of the intervention of right test, this

language has informed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on the fourth

element (adequacy of representation) as well. See Arakaki v.

Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). The language is

drawn from the Rule 24 advisory committee notes that state “if an

absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense by

the determination made in an action, he should, as a general

rule, be entitled to intervene.” 

20

consultation for DWR’s operation of the barriers as part of the

SDIP. In this respect, DWR, as the responsible government

agency, is far more technically capable of and directly

interested in making arguments in defense of allowing the SDIP

and related projects to continue should any injunctive relief

issue in this case and is the only party with standing to

represent the manager or operator interest in the SDIP.

Plaintiffs’ also minimize the legal import of the requested

remedies in this case. The Ninth Circuit places considerable

weight on the practical consequences of a lawsuit. Courts must

determine whether an applicant’s ability to protect its interests

will be, “as a practical matter, impaired or impeded by the

disposition of the action.” Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d

at 1497-98.6

In Forest Conservation Council, environmental groups sued

the Forest Service for failing to undertake appropriate

environmental review of its guidelines for the management of

Northern Goshawk habitat. The State of Arizona moved to

intervene, arguing that the issuance of an injunction requested

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 20 of 25
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

by plaintiffs would threaten state lands adjacent to forest

service lands because suspension of forest management activities

would increase the likelihood of catastrophic forest fires. 

Similarly, an Arizona county moved to intervene, asserting that

the relief sought by plaintiffs would adversely affect its

interest in the revenue it receives from taxes and fees imposed

on the use of the federally-controlled lands. Id. at 1492. The

Ninth Circuit held that both the State and the County had the

right to intervene, rejecting the argument that “amicus curiae

status is sufficient for [applicants] to protect their

interests....[because if applicants] are not made a party to this

action, they will have no legal means to challenge [any]

injunction while it remains in effect.” Id. at 1498.

In the same way, DWR has a direct interest in participating

in this lawsuit to help shape and have standing to challenge any

injunctive relief, which will be directly applicable to its

management and operation of the SWP. DWR also has unique

interests in the viability of the OCAP BiOp. If intervention is

denied, DWR will be effectively prevented from challenging, or

seeking to modify as necessary, any injunctive relief that is

designed to control the DWR’s management and operation of the

SWP. 

DWR’s motion for intervention of right is GRANTED subject to

any conditions ordered after the scheduling conference in this

case. (See infra Part III.C.)

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 21 of 25
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

B. Permissive Intervention.

Alternatively, DWR requests permission to permissively

intervene pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2), which provides that a court

may, in its discretion, permit intervention, “when an applicant's

claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or

fact in common.” In exercising its discretion the court “shall

consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice

the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Id.

The language of the rule makes clear that if the would

be intervenor's claim or defense contains no question

of law or fact that is raised also by the main action,

intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) must be denied. But,

if there is a common question of law or fact, the

requirement of the rule has been satisfied and it is

then discretionary with the court whether to allow

intervention.

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir.

2002). “Where proposed intervenors would present no new

questions to the court, a motion for permissive intervention is

properly denied.” Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Quaeck, 161 F.R.D.

98, 103 (D. Or. 1995). Here, however, as discussed, DWR presents

new questions concerning the propriety of certain forms of

potential relief that may be issued against it in this case. 

C. Conditions Upon Intervention.

Plaintiffs suggest that DWR’s intervention will cause undue

burden for the existing parties, however any such burden can be

minimized by placing reasonable conditions upon DWR’s

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 22 of 25
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 DWR appears to argue that conditioning intervention

would not be appropriate, citing California v. United States, 805

F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1986), a case in which the Ninth Circuit

happened not to place conditions on permissive intervention. 

This case does not suggest it would be inappropriate to do so

when necessary to promote the efficient and economical

disposition of the case.

23

intervention and upon other parties’ participation in briefing

and argument with a view toward avoiding duplication,

inefficiency, and undue burden on the court and party resrouces. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1966 Amendment to Rule 24

state: “An intervention of right under the amended rule may be

subject to appropriate conditions or restrictions responsive

among other things to the requirements of efficient conduct of

the proceedings.”7 Accordingly, DWR may be required to

coordinate briefing or share oral argument with the existing

parties. Any such coordination will be discussed at the

scheduling conference and will continue through management of the

case to final judgment. 

D. Request to Stay Decision on this Motion Pending

Resolution of SWC’s Appeal.

Plaintiffs request that any decision permitting intervention

be stayed until the Ninth Circuit has an opportunity to decide

the pending appeal. Plaintiffs, however, provide no

justification for this request. SWC’s motion to intervene is

entirely distinguishable from the circumstances of this motion. 

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 23 of 25
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

Judge Wilken reasoned that SWC, which represents public agencies

with contracts for CVP water, did not present any unique

interests and could be adequately represented by other parties to

the case: 

Authority will represent the interests of CVP water

users, and Farm Bureau will represent the interests of

SWP water users. Authority will represent public water

agencies’ interests and Farm Bureau will represent

individual consumers’ interests.

(Doc. 45 at 8-9.) As is obvious from a number of lawsuits

already on file, the Farm Bureau’s primary interest is in the

preservation and protection of farmland and the effect of the

water supply on farming generally. To the contrary, CVP

contractors have decidedly competing interests, inter se, as they

compete for priority in entitlement to water allocations under

their federal water service contracts. SWP users, incidentally

represented by the Farm Bureau, arguably have different legal

positions and interests from State Water Contractors that are

public agencies, all of whose interests are different from the

DWR, both because DWR is an adverse contracting party,

representing a different sovereign, and because DWR has

independent duties to protect the public trust. Further, in

prior litigation over the CVP, DWR and Bureau interests have

diverged, where state and federal scientists disagreed about the

status of the species and presented different recommendations for

its protection. Nothing will be gained by delaying the decision

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 24 of 25
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

on the DWR’s intervention, by reason of its wholly unique status

and different interests in SWP operations and management. The

pending SWC appeal does not address the interests discussed in

this decision.

IV. CONCLUSION

DWR’s motion to intervene as a matter of right is GRANTED

subject to any conditions set forth during the scheduling

conference in this case. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: January 5, 2006 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01207-DAD-EPG Document 164 Filed 01/05/06 Page 25 of 25