Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00407-93/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
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

THE CONSOLIDATED DELTA SMELT CASES

Lead Case:

1:09-cv-00407 LJO BAM

Member Cases:

1:09-cv-00422 LJO GSA

1:09-cv-00480 LJO GSA

1:09-cv-00631 LJO DLB

1:09-cv-00892 LJO DLB

Partially Consolidated With: 

1:09-cv-01201-LJO-DLB

ORDER GRANTING RE MOTION TO 

EXTEND REMAND SCHEDULE (Doc. 

1153)

The amended judgment in the Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases requires the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (“Reclamation”) to conduct certain analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”) by December 1, 2015. Doc. 1135. Reclamation released a draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (“EIS”) pursuant to NEPA on July 31, 2015, and simultaneously commenced a 60-day public 

comment period, which closed on September 29, 2015. Id. at 3. Reclamation maintains that it received a 

large number of highly complex comments on or slightly before that deadline – “far more than it had 

anticipated.” Id. On October 5, 2015, Reclamation moved for a six week extension of the December 1, 

2015 deadline (to January 12, 2016), asserting that six weeks is the shortest amount of time in which it 

believes it can fully address the volume of comments received, taking into consideration the intervening 

holidays. The Court set an expedited schedule to resolve the matter and permitted any party to file an 

opposition on or before October 7, 2015. Doc. 1154. No party has opposed the issuance of an extension, 

although several (which also filed comments on the draft EIS) believe six weeks is an insufficient amount 

of time for Reclamation to properly respond to the comments. See Docs. 1155-1159. 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 1160 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) authorizes the Court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a 

final judgment, order, or proceeding [if] applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.” A party 

invoking Rule 60(b)(5) must satisfy a two-prong standard. United States v. Asarco, Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 

979 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)). First, “[t]he 

moving party must satisfy an initial burden of showing a significant change either in factual conditions or 

in the law warranting modification of the [judgment].” Id. (citing Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384). Next, “the 

proposed modification [must be] suitably tailored to resolve the problems created by the changed factual 

or legal conditions.” Id. (citing Rufo, 502 U.S. at 391). If the movant can point to “significantly changed 

factual conditions, ... it must additionally show that the changed conditions make compliance with the 

[judgment] ‘more onerous,’ ‘unworkable,’ or ‘detrimental to the public interest.’” Id. (citing Small v. 

Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 795 (4th Cir. 1996) and quoting Rufo, 502 U.S. at 384).

1

Here, Reclamation asserts that it was surprised by the volume and complexity of the comments 

received. Declaration of Pablo Arroyave, Doc. 1153-1, ¶ 5. Specifically, Reclamation received 35 welldeveloped probing comment letters and emails and two comments at public meetings, totaling 

approximately 860 individual comments that require responses. Id. All but three of these comments were 

received on the closing day of the comment period. Id. Given the complexity and scope of the draft EIS 

and the widespread interest in the issues it addresses, the Court finds it difficult to imagine why 

Reclamation did not anticipate such a volume of public comment. Nevertheless, taking Reclamation at 

its word for purposes of this motion, the Court concludes that the unexpected volume of complex 

comments constitutes a “significantly changed factual condition” that renders compliance with the 

December 1, 2015 deadline unworkable. 

Reclamation requests a six-week extension of the deadline to January 12, 2016. As mentioned, 

some parties object that this is insufficient and at least one party suggests that the Court sua sponte

 

1 Rufo and Asarco concerned the modification of consent decrees entered in cases involving institutional reform. The Ninth 

Circuit has confirmed that the standards set forth in Rufo provide a “general, flexible standard for all petitions brought under 

the equity provision of Rule 60(b)(5).” Bellevue Manor Associates v. United States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(emphasis added); see also Conservation Cong. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2010 WL 3636142 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010) aff'd, 489 

F. App'x 151 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying Rufo in Administrative Procedure Act case). 

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 1160 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

extend the deadline to December 1, 2016. See Doc. 1156 (Response of San Luis & Delta Mendota Water 

Authority and Westlands Water District). The Court declines to do so. In general, a federal 

administrative agency is entitled to deference regarding “the methods, procedures, and time dimension

of the needed inquiry” on remand. Federal Power Commission v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 

Corporation, 423 U.S. 326, 333 (1976) (emphasis added). Reclamation has not requested a year

extension and the Court will not create further delay where none has been justified by the record. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Reclamation’s request to extend the deadline for the issuance 

of a Record of Decision under NEPA to on or before January 12, 2016. While this order is without 

prejudice to further extension requests, Reclamation is warned that: (a) further extension requests must 

be supported by specific showings of need and be accompanied by a demonstration that Reclamation has 

a cogent plan for meeting future deadlines; and (b) further requests to consider such extensions on an 

expedited basis will be viewed with disfavor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00407-LJO-BAM Document 1160 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 3