Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00431/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00431-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

PERKINS COIE LLP

Barbara J. Schussman, Bar No. 142352

Marc R. Bruner, Bar No. 212344

505 Howard Street, Suite 1000

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 344-7000

Email: mbruner@perkinscoie.com

BOLD, POLISNER, MADDOW, NELSON & JUDSON

Sharon M. Nagle, Bar No. 179124

Douglas E. Coty, Bar No. 227006

2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 210

Walnut Creek, CA 94598

(925) 933-7777

Email: snagle@bpmnj.com

Attorneys for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF 

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS; 

INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES; 

GOLDEN STATE SALMON ASSOCIATION; 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL, INC.; DEFENDERS OF 

WILDLIFE; and BAY.ORG d/b/a THE BAY 

INSTITUTE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WILBUR ROSS, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of Commerce; CHRIS OLIVER, in 

his official capacity as Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration; NATIONAL 

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE; DAVID 

BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of the Interior; AURELIA 

SKIPWITH, in her official capacity as Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; BRENDA 

BURMAN, in her official capacity as 

Commissioner of Reclamation; and U.S. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

Related to Case No. 1:20-CV-00426-DADEPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING INTERVENTION OF 

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 9
-1- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

This stipulation is entered into by proposed Defendant-Intervenor Contra Costa Water 

District (“CCWD”); Plaintiffs Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for 

Fisheries Resources, Golden State Salmon Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

Defenders of Wildlife, and Bay.Org d/b/a The Bay Institute (“Plaintiffs”); Defendants Wilbur 

Ross, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; Chris Oliver, in his official capacity as 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 

National Marine Fisheries Service; David Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of 

Interior; Aurelia Skipwith, in her official capacity as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Brenda Burman, in her official capacity as 

Commissioner of Reclamation; and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (“Federal Defendants”); and 

Defendants-Intervenors San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (“SLDMWA”), Westlands 

Water District (“Westlands”), State Water Contractors (“SWC”), Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority

(“TCCA”), and Sacramento River Settlement Contractors (“SRS Contractors”).

1. WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs in the instant action allege that the Biological Opinions 

issued on October 21, 2019 (“2019 Biological Opinions”), by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(“USFWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) for the coordinated long-term 

operations of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”) and State Water Project (“SWP”) do not comply 

with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act, and that the associated Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (“Final EIS”) prepared and adopted by the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (“Reclamation”) does not comply with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act.

2. WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of the 2019 Biological Opinions, the long-term 

coordinated operations of the CVP and SWP were governed by a 2008 Biological Opinion issued 

by the USFWS and a 2009 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS (“2008 and 2009 Biological 

Opinions”).

3. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the instant action in the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California (“Northern District”), naming only Federal Defendants as 

defendants. ECF No. 1.

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 9
-2- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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. WHEREAS, the Northern District granted SLDMWA and Westlands’ motion for 

permissive intervention. ECF No. 37.

5. WHEREAS, the Northern District granted the SRS Contractors and TCCA 

permissive intervention, subject to specified conditions, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties. 

ECF No. 102.

6. WHEREAS, the Northern District transferred the action to this Court. ECF No. 

112. 

7. WHEREAS, this Court granted SWC’s motion for permissive intervention, subject 

to specified conditions. ECF No. 122.

8. WHEREAS, the Court granted the City of Redding and Knights Landing 

Investors, LLC permissive intervention, as additional SRS Contractors, subject to specified 

conditions, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties. ECF No. 124. 

9. WHEREAS, CCWD relies on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (“Delta”) for its 

water supplies to fulfill its mission of providing high-quality drinking water to its 500,000 

customers in central and eastern Contra Costa County.

10. WHEREAS, CCWD seeks to intervene as a Defendant in this action, but only for 

the limited purpose and on a limited basis as described below in this Stipulation.

11. WHEREAS, CCWD’s operations are governed by a separate set of biological 

opinions and permits that impose certain restrictions, for the protection of federally- and statelisted species, on when CCWD may divert water from its intakes in the Delta and when CCWD 

may fill its Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

12. WHEREAS, CCWD uses its Los Vaqueros Reservoir for storage, in order to shift 

the timing of its diversions from the Delta, which enables CCWD to meet the requirements 

specified in its biological opinions and permits while also ameliorating seasonal changes in Delta 

water quality so that it can continually provide high-quality drinking water to its customers.

13. WHEREAS, there are times each year when CCWD coordinates its operations 

with the operations of the CVP and SWP, in order to ensure that CCWD is not restricted in its 

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 9
-3- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

diversions and filling operations, beyond the restrictions that already are specified in CCWD’s 

own biological opinions and permits.

14. WHEREAS, Reclamation has made a commitment in its Final EIS and its Record 

of Decision (“ROD”) in this matter that it will continue to work with CCWD to ensure that the 

implementation of the plan of the operations for the CVP and SWP does not create new or 

additional restrictions on CCWD operations, beyond the restrictions that already are specified in 

CCWD’s own biological opinions and permits, thereby ensuring that CCWD will have 

opportunities to fill Los Vaqueros Reservoir that are at least comparable to conditions in effect 

prior to the ROD.

15. WHEREAS, a remedy ordered by the Court or a settlement reached by the parties 

in this action could result in a change in how the CVP and SWP are operated.

16. WHEREAS, CCWD believes that such a change in how the CVP and SWP are 

operated could result in reduced availability of high-quality water at CCWD’s intakes in the 

Delta, as well as the creation or imposition of new or additional restrictions on CCWD operations, 

beyond the restrictions that already are specified in CCWD’s own biological opinions and 

permits.

17. WHEREAS, CCWD believes that these effects from a change in how the CVP and 

SWP are operated could reduce CCWD’s opportunities to fill its Los Vaqueros Reservoir with 

high-quality water, as compared to the conditions in effect prior to Reclamation’s ROD.

18. WHEREAS, CCWD seeks to protect its rights and interests and therefore seeks to 

intervene in this action.

19. WHEREAS, CCWD does not seek to intervene in this action with respect to any 

issues related to the merits of whether the 2019 Biological Opinions or the Final EIS are in 

compliance with the requirements of federal law.

20. WHEREAS, CCWD instead seeks to intervene in this action only to address those 

aspects of a Court-ordered remedy or a settlement by the parties that could result in the creation 

or imposition of new or additional restrictions on CCWD operations and its ability to fill its Los 

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 9
-4- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

Vaqueros Reservoir, beyond the restrictions that already are specified in CCWD’s own biological 

opinions and permits. 

21. WHEREAS, CCWD accordingly proposes to intervene only for the following 

purposes: (1) to submit briefing, evidence and argument on those specific aspects of a potential

Court-ordered remedy, at such time when issues pertaining to remedy are presented to the Court,

that could result in the creation or imposition of new or additional restrictions on CCWD’s 

pumping or storage operations, where (A) such new or additional restrictions would be more 

restrictive than the restrictions that already are specified in CCWD’s own biological opinions and

incidental take permits; or (B) such new or additional restrictions would be more restrictive than 

the pre-ROD effects on CCWD’s pumping or storage operations resulting from the OMR limits 

included in the 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions; and (2) to participate in settlement 

discussions among the parties that could result in the creation or imposition of such new or 

additional restrictions on CCWD’s pumping or storage operations as described above.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, CCWD also agrees that it will not submit briefing, evidence or 

argument on: (1) whether the 2019 Biological Opinions or Final EIS comply with federal law;

(2) aspects of any proposed Court-ordered remedy that address operations upstream of the Delta; 

and (3) aspects of any Court-ordered remedy that address Delta outflow requirements, except to 

the extent such aspects of any Court-ordered remedy that address Delta outflow requirements 

affect CCWD’s pumping or storage operations.

22. WHEREAS, CCWD does not presently know when such Court proceedings or 

settlement discussions referenced above in Paragraph 20 may occur, and therefore seeks to 

intervene now in order to adequately preserve and protect its interests.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by and between Plaintiffs, CCWD, Federal 

Defendants, and Defendant-Intervenors, through their respective counsel, as follows.

A. CCWD shall be granted permissive intervention in this action pursuant to Rule 

24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

B. CCWD’s intervention in the action shall be limited to the specific matters 

referenced above in Paragraph 20.

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 5 of 9
-5- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

C. CCWD’s participation shall further be subject to any limitations that the Court 

may impose on that intervention, now or in the future, to ensure the fair and efficient resolution of 

this litigation.

D. CCWD agrees to make a good-faith effort to avoid duplication of any arguments 

raised by any other party in this action.

E. CCWD and Plaintiffs agree to meet and confer on the need for any proposed page 

limitations in any subsequent briefing in this case to which CCWD is a participant. CCWD and 

Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek or oppose additional limitations on the length of briefs in the 

event that CCWD and Plaintiffs are unable to reach an agreement on page limits.

DATED: Apr. 27, 2020 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Marc Bruner

MARC BRUNER

Attorneys for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor

CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

DATED: Apr. 27, 2020 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

By: /s/ Barbara Chisholm (authorized 4/27/20)

BARBARA J. CHISHOLM

Attorneys for Plaintiffs GOLDEN STATE 

SALMON ASSOCIATION; NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.; 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, AND 

BAY.ORG d/b/a THE BAY INSTITUTE

DATED: Apr. 27, 2020 GLEN H. SPAIN

By: /s/ Glen H. Spain (authorized 4/27/20)

GLEN H. SPAIN

Attorney for Plaintiffs PACIFIC COAST 

FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S 

ASSOCIATIONS and INSTITUTE FOR 

FISHERIES RESOURCES

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 6 of 9
-6- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

DATED: Apr. 28, 2020 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES 

DIVISION WILDLIFE & MARINE RESOURCES 

SECTION

By: /s/ Lesley Lawrence-Hammer (authorized 4/28/20)

LESLEY LAWRENCE-HAMMER

Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS

DATED: Apr. 29, 2020 DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By: /s/ Meredith E. Nikkel (authorized 4/29/20)

MEREDITH E. NIKKEL

Attorneys for Defendants-Intervenors

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 108, 

SUTTER MUTUAL WATER COMPANY; 

NATOMAS CENTRAL MUTUAL WATER 

COMPANY; RIVER GARDEN FARMS 

WATER COMPANY; PLEASANT GROVEVERONA MUTUAL WATER COMPANY; 

PELGER MUTUAL WATER COMPANY; 

MERIDIAN FARMS WATER COMPANY; 

HENRY D. RICHTER, et al.; HOWALD 

FARMS, INC.; OJI BROTHERS FARM, INC.; 

OJI FAMILY PARTNERSHIP; CARTER 

MUTUAL WATER COMPANY; 

WINDSWEPT LAND AND LIVESTOCK 

COMPANY; MAXWELL IRRIGATION 

DISTRICT; BEVERLY F. ANDREOTTI, et al.; 

TISDALE IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE 

COMPANY; PROVIDENT IRRIGATION 

DISTRICT; PRINCETON-CODORA-GLENN 

IRRIGATION DISTRICT and TEHAMACOLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY

DATED: Apr. 29, 2020 SOMACH SIMMONS & DUNN

By: /s/ Andrew Hitchings (authorized 4/29/20)

ANDREW HITCHINGS

Attorneys for Defendants-Intervenors GLENNCOLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT; 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 1004; 

CONAWAY PRESERVATION GROUP, LLC; 

DAVID AND ALICE teVELDE FAMILY 

TRUST; PELGER ROAD 1700, LLC; 

ANDERSON-COTTONWOOD IRRIGATION 

DISTRICT; CITY OF REDDING; and KNIGHTS 

LANDING INVESTORS, LLC 

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 7 of 9
-7- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

DATED: May 4, 2020 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & 

GIRARD 

By: /s/ Daniel J. O’Hanlon (authorized 5/4/20)

DANIEL J. O’HANLON

Attorneys for Defendants-Intervenors

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT

DATED: Apr. 30, 2020 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 

By: /s/ Jenna R. Manedell-Rice (authorized 4/30/20)_

JENNA R. MANDELL-RICE

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor 

THE STATE WATER CONTRACTORS

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 8 of 9
-8- Case No. 1:20-CV-00431-DAD-EPG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING INTERVENTION OF CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

147878836.7

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

ORDER

The Court hereby grants permissive intervention to Contra Costa Water District pursuant 

to the terms of the parties’ Stipulation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00431-JLT-EPG Document 171 Filed 05/11/20 Page 9 of 9