Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03527/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03527-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Planning and Conservation League
Plaintiff
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority
Intervenor Dft
United States Bureau of Reclamation
Defendant
Westlands Water District
Intervenor Dft

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

Defendant;

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER

AUTHORITY; and WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT,

Defendants-Intervenors

(remedies phase only). /

No. C 05-3527 CW

AMENDED

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S

APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff Planning and Conversation League moves for a

temporary restraining order enjoining construction of the Intertie

Project, discussed below, until its preliminary injunction motion

is heard. Defendant United States Bureau of Reclamation has filed

an opposition to Plaintiff's application for a temporary

restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Defendants-Intervenors San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and

Westlands Water District (collectively, Intervenors) also oppose

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order. Having

considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court grants

Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order.

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff challenges an environmental review

of a proposed 500-foot-long pipeline and related pumps, which would

connect the main delivery canals of two water diversion 

projects -- the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and

California's State Water Project (SWP) -- in California's Central

Valley. These diversion projects draw their water from the estuary

formed by the discharge of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River

systems into the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta). The proposed

pipeline at issue is known as the Delta-Mendota Canal/California

Aqueduct Intertie (Intertie Project). 

In September, 2004, the Bureau and the San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority completed a joint environmental review of

the Intertie Project titled "Delta-Mendota Canal/California

Aqueduct Intertie Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact/

Negative Declaration and Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial

Study" (Intertie EA/IS). The Intertie EA/IS was released for

public comment in November, 2004. Plaintiff and others submitted

comments on this study. Plaintiff commented that, because

increased pumping associated with the Intertie Project could have

significant environmental effects on the Bay-Delta, a full

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared as required

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Bureau did

not prepare an EIS; instead, it signed a Finding of No Significant

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Impact (FONSI).

Plaintiff filed this action on August 31, 2005. On

January 12, 2006, the Court scheduled the parties' cross-motions

for summary judgment for hearing on May 26, 2006.

On January 17, 2006, Defendant notified Plaintiff it had

awarded the construction contract related to the Intertie Project. 

Construction on the Intertie Project is slated to begin on

February 6, 2006.

LEGAL STANDARD

A temporary restraining order may be issued only if "immediate

and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

applicant" if the order does not issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). To

obtain a temporary retraining order, the moving party must

establish either: (1) a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious

questions regarding the merits exist and the balance of hardships

tips sharply in the moving party's favor. See Baby Tam & Co. v.

City of Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1998); Rodeo

Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.

1987).

The test for granting a temporary restraining order, like that

for a preliminary injunction, is a "continuum in which the required

showing of harm varies inversely with the required showing of

meritoriousness." Rodeo Collection, 812 F.2d at 1217 (quoting San

Diego Comm. Against Registration & the Draft v. Governing Bd. of

Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 790 F.2d 1471, 1473 n.3 (9th Cir.

1986)). The moving party ordinarily must show "a significant

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

threat of irreparable injury," although there is "a sliding scale

in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the

probability of success decreases," United States v. Odessa Union

Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172, 174, 175 (9th Cir. 1987), and vice

versa.

DISCUSSION

I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated NEPA by not

preparing an EIS. "[A]n EIS must be prepared if 'substantial

questions are raised as to whether a project . . . may cause

significant degradation of some human environmental factor.'" 

Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 402 F.3d 846, 864

(9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Idaho Sporting Cong. v. Thomas, 137 F.3d

1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998) (alterations and emphasis in original)). 

Plaintiff argues that it has a high probability of success on the

merits because, to trigger the requirement for an EIS, it "need not

show that significant effects will in fact occur." See id. at 865

(quoting Idaho Sporting, 137 F.3d at 1150)(emphasis in original). 

Instead, Plaintiff need only raise substantial questions regarding

whether the project may have a significant effect. Id.

As noted by Defendant, however, in reviewing its decision not

to prepare an EIS, this Court's role is "simply to ensure that the

agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental

impact of its actions and that its decision is not arbitrary or

capricious." Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def.

Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97-98 (1983). The Court may not

substitute its own judgment for that of the agency; if the Court

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

determines that the agency took a "hard look" at a project's

environmental consequences, the Court's review is at an end. See

National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 222

F.3d 677, 680 (9th Cir. 2000). 

A. Significant Impacts

Plaintiff argues that the Intertie EA/IS itself shows that the

Intertie Project may have significant impacts on the environment. 

For example, the Intertie EA/IS predicted that the Intertie Project

would move the saltwater/freshwater boundary one kilometer and

reduce the delta smelt's habitat by generally less than five

percent. Plaintiff contends that these may be significant impacts,

especially considering that the Bay-Delta environment is already

vulnerable. See Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 343 (D.C.

Cir. 2002) (noting that when an environment is already vulnerable

even a slight increase in adverse conditions "may represent the

straw that breaks the back of the environmental camel"). Plaintiff

notes that Defendant has previously recognized that these impacts,

which it now purports to be minor, are significant: CALFED BayDelta Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement/Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Defendant and

other agencies in July, 2000, states, "For special-status species,

such as species listed under federal and California ESAs, harm to

individual organisms and their habitat is considered a potentially

significant adverse impact." 

Defendant does not dispute that the Intertie EA/IS documents

that harm to the habitats of special-status species, like the delta

smelt, could occur. Instead, it contends that it conducted a

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 5 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

comprehensive and detailed analysis of the potential effects

related to water quality and fisheries, and many other issues not

discussed by Plaintiff, such as vegetation, wildlife and air

quality, that its conclusion of no significance is supported by the

record and that an EIS was not required. Defendant accuses

Plaintiff of asking the Court to second-guess its conclusion that

the Intertie Project will not have significant impacts on water

qualities and fisheries, and reminds the Court that when reviewing

a "scientific determination, as opposed to simple findings of fact,

a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential." 

Baltimore Gas, 462 U.S. at 103. The Ninth Circuit has instructed,

"When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have

discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified

experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary

views more persuasive." Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, 222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). But that does

not mean that the Court should merely rubber-stamp the conclusions

reached by Defendant's specialists, especially if those conclusions

may be unreasonable. As the Supreme Court explained in Marsh v.

Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989), courts

"should not automatically defer" to an agency "without carefully

reviewing the record and satisfying themselves that the agency has

made a reasoned decision." "A contrary approach would not simply

render judicial review generally meaningless, but would be contrary

to the demand that courts ensure that agency decisions are founded

on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors." Id. (inner

quotations omitted).

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 6 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Thus, even providing Defendant with all the deference that it

is due, the Court finds that serious questions regarding the merits

of this argument exist.

B. Cumulative Effects

Plaintiff argues that the Intertie EA/IS inadequately

addressed cumulative impacts and thus an EIS was required. It

notes that NEPA does not allow projects to be analyzed in

artificial isolation; instead, it requires a discussion of the

cumulative impacts of the proposed project in combination with

"past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions." See

40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. This discussion, however, "must be more than

perfunctory." Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d

1062, 1075 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit requires that the

discussion of cumulative impacts provide some quantified or

detailed information: "general statements about 'possible' effects

and 'some risk' do not constitute a 'hard look' absent a

justification regarding why more definitive information could not

be provided." Id. (quoting Neighbors of Cuddy Mt. v. U.S. Forest

Serv., 137 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

 Defendant contends that it adequately assessed the cumulative

impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects. This contention,

however, is based upon Defendant's definition of "reasonably

foreseeable" and its determination of what is speculative. For

example, Defendant states that it did not analyze the cumulative

effects of the South Delta Improvements Project (SDIP) because, at

the time it released the Intertie EA/IS, no published draft

environmental document for the SDIP was available. According to

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 7 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendant, a project is not "reasonably foreseeable" until it is

supported by published draft environmental documents. See also

EA/IS 3-20 ("There are other actions and programs being evaluated

and implemented by CALFED agencies that could conceivably

contribute to cumulative impacts. However, these are relatively

undefined at this time, and it would be speculative to include

these other programs in a cumulative analysis.")

But the Ninth Circuit has held otherwise. In Muckleshoot

Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800, 812 (9th Cir.

1999), the court reversed the district court's determination that a

project was too speculative to require analysis. It held that the

project was reasonably foreseeable, and should have been

considered, because a summary of the proposed project had been

prepared the year before, and, five months before the EIS was

issued, the Secretary of Agriculture formally announced the

proposed project to the public. 

In response to Plaintiff's allegations that the Intertie EA/IE

contained only a perfunctory discussion of cumulative impacts,

Defendant notes that a more detailed analysis of cumulative impacts

is not required when the agency explains why definitive information

could not be provided. Here, Defendant's justification was that

various projects were "too speculative" to consider. But, based on

the Ninth Circuit's holding in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Court

could find that this justification is arbitrary and capricious and

that Defendant does not provide the necessary and detailed

cumulative analysis, but only "broad and general statements devoid

of specific, reasoned conclusions." Id. at 811. Thus, there is a

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 8 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On pages 3-78 and 3-85, Defendant discounted the CALSIM II's

finding that, under certain conditions, the Intertie Project could

increase the entrainment, i.e., killing, of delta smelt and striped

bass by greater than forty to fifty percent: "The increased

entrainment is attributable to a simulated increase in SWP pumping

in June . . . . The simulated change in pumping is attributable to

9

strong likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of this

argument.

C. CALSIM II Modeling Studies

Plaintiff also argues that an EIS is required because the

Intertie EA/IS, and the finding of no significant impact, were

largely based on models which, while capable of predicting what

might happen, are too unreliable to rule out the potential for

significant impacts. Furthermore, NEPA requires advance

disclosures of relevant short-comings in the data or models, which

Plaintiff contends Defendant fails to disclose. See Lands Counsel

v. Forester of Region One of the U.S. Forest Serv., 395 F.3d 1019,

1032 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The Intertie EA/IS relies on CALSIM II, a model prepared by

Defendant and California Department of Water Resources and used in

most Central Valley water planning processes. In 2003, a panel of

scientists prepared a peer review of CALSIM II and noted that,

while the model's "strengths are many, so are its weaknesses." 

Plaintiff contends that, although Defendant relied almost

exclusively on model-generated numbers to draw its conclusion that

increasing Delta exports by thousands of acre-feet per year will

not potentially create significant environmental impacts, the

Intertie EA/IS did not disclose any weakness in the model, except

when the model's predictions showed possible significant impacts.1

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 9 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

rules within the CALSIM II model and does not represent changes in

SWP pumping that would be expected with actual implementation of

the Proposed Action."

10

When Plaintiff commented on this nondisclosure, and provided

Defendant with a copy of the peer review, Defendant responded: 

We have used the best available data and the best

available modeling tools. The data and modeling tools

are similar and consistent with the data and modeling

tools used in the NOAA BO. Consequently, the EA/IS

analysis supports the conclusions to the extent required

under CEQA/NEPA.

Defendant attacks Plaintiff's argument that the model is too

unreliable by asserting that Plaintiff misconstrues the difference

between using models for predictive purposes and for comparative

purposes. Predictive models, it asserts, "are used to accurately

represent physical systems and the potential that a range of

physical inputs has to influence the state of physical systems";

whereas, comparative models "are used to identify trade-offs

between the use of different operational alternatives for meeting

system demands within the limits of allowable operations." Because

Defendant used the model for comparative, not predictive, purposes,

it asserts that Plaintiff's arguments regarding reliability and

predictability are entirely misplaced. The scientific review of

CALSIM II, however, rejected this assertion, noting that it was

skeptical of the notion that, although the model might not generate

a highly reliable absolute prediction, it could still produce a

reasonably reliable estimate of the relative change in outcome. It

noted that, for a predictive analysis, one runs the model once to

predict an outcome; for a comparative analysis, one runs the model

twice, first as a baseline and second with some specific change, in

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 10 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

order to compare the two results. CALSIM II is not a perfect

model; no model is. But its use alone does not show that Defendant

was arbitrary and capricious in reaching its finding of no

significant impact. As Plaintiff acknowledges, an EA/IS can rely

on a model, provided it discloses the assumptions and limitations

of the model. See Sierra Club v. Castle, 657 F.2d 298, 332 (D.C.

Cir. 1981) (upholding EPA's reliance on modeling because it

provided necessary disclosure). 

Defendant asserts that it sufficiently disclosed any

assumptions and limitations. It points to Appendix B, "CALSIM II

Modeling Studies of the Delta Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie,"

which describes the methodology and the assumptions used in the

models, including the assumption that an Environmental Water

Account adequately funded to allocate water for fish protection

would continue to exist. It argues that it did not have to

disclose any limitations of CALSIM II, because, as discussed above,

it used the model to compare different alternatives and related

environmental effects, not to predict a specific future

environmental condition. 

Defendant discounts Plaintiff's argument that it improperly

assumed the existence of a long-term Environmental Water Account,

asserting that the Environmental Water Account was properly

included in the modeling scenarios. It notes that the

Environmental Water Account is entering its sixth year of operation

and that it has publicly committed to continuing the Environmental

Water Account, or, if it is discontinued, to providing the same

level of fish protection by some other means. But Defendant fails

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 11 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to note that the Intertie EA/IS listed the Environmental Water

Account among programs that are "in the very early planning and

feasibility stages" and therefore were too speculative to include

in a qualitative analysis. Plaintiff points out the inconsistency

of including the Environmental Water Account as an assumption in

the model but not as a factor in a qualitative analysis. 

Defendant's opposition, however, fails to address it. Nor does

Defendant address Plaintiff's exhibit, showing the Environmental

Water Account's dire lack of funding.

 The Court finds that there is a reasonable likelihood that

Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of this argument. See Lands

Council, 395 F.3d at 1032 (finding that nondisclosure of relevant

shortcomings in model violated NEPA).

D. Intervenors' Argument

In addition to joining Defendant's arguments, Intervenors

argue that Plaintiff cannot succeed because the Intertie Project

does not alter the status quo. Intervenors note that the CVP Tracy

Pumping Plant has a maximum authorized pumping capacity of 4,600

cubic feet per second (cfs) of water. Various constraints,

however, have prevented it from operating at that capacity fulltime; currently its pumping capacity is limited to approximately

4,200 cfs during the winter. The Intertie Project is intended to

address one of these constraints and to enable the Tracy Pumping

Plant to pump at its full capacity, which was approved before NEPA

was enacted. See Westside Property Owners v. Schlesinger, 597 F.2d

1214, 1223-25 (9th Cir. 1979) (stating that, as a general matter,

NEPA does not apply retroactively).

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 12 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Intervenors contend that, although it was useful to informed

decision-making, the Intertie EA/IS was not required under NEPA to

analyze the effects of additional pumping at 4,600 cfs. 

13

Intervenors argue that, because the Intertie project will only

restore the Tracy Pumping Plant to its full, and already approved,

capacity, an EIS is not required.2 The case they cite in support

of this argument, however, is arguably distinguishable. In Upper

Snake River Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Hodel, 921 F.2d 232 (9th

Cir. 1990), the court noted that previously it had "held that where

a proposed federal action would not change the status quo, an EIS

is not necessary," ruling that "an EIS need not discuss the

environmental effects of mere continued operation of a facility." 

921 F.2d at 235 (quoting Burbank Anti-Noise Group v. Goldschmidt,

623 F.2d 115, 116 (9th Cir. 1980)). The court in Upper Snake River

determined that a dam's reduction in flow did not constitute a

major federal action under NEPA because the reduction in flow was a

routine and continuing operation of the dam. Here, however, it is

not clear if pumping 4,600 cfs is a routine and continuing

operation of the Tracy Pumping Plant. 

The Intervenors fail to provide the Court with evidence to

show that pumping 4,600 cfs is a routine and continuing operation

of the Tracy Pumping Plant, and thus the Court finds that this

argument does not make it less likely that Plaintiff will succeed

on the merits.

II. Balance of Hardships

Plaintiff argues that the balance of hardships tips strongly

in favor of the preliminary relief it seeks. The Ninth Circuit has

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 13 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

instructed, "Where an EIS is required, allowing a potentially

environmentally damaging project to proceed prior to its

preparation runs contrary to the very purpose of the statutory

requirement." National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt, 241

F.3d 722, 737-38 (9th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, as the Supreme

Court has explained,

Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be

adequately remedied by money damages and is often

permanent or at least of long duration, i.e.,

irreparable. If such injury is sufficiently likely,

therefore, the balance of harms will usually favor the

issuance of an injunction to protect the environment. 

Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545

(1987). 

Defendant, however, contends that Plaintiff has proven no

irreparable harm and that the balance of harms imposed by an

injunction favors Defendant. It asserts that the alleged harm at

issue is not the harm imposed by construction of the Intertie

Project, but rather the environmental impacts caused by the

operational effects of the water flowing through the Intertie,

which is not scheduled to occur until late December, 2006, months

after the Court hears the cross motions for summary judgment. 

However, Plaintiff also argues that the construction threatens

irreversible environmental harms, for "[a]fter major investment of

both time and money, it is likely that more environmental harm will

be tolerated." Save the Yaak Committee v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 718

(9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff also cites Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 504

(1st Cir. 1989), where then-Circuit Judge Breyer explained that

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 14 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

"the risk implied by a violation of NEPA is that real environmental

harm will occur through inadequate foresight and deliberation." 

See id. (finding that the "difficulty of stopping a bureaucratic

steam roller, once started" is "a perfectly proper factor for a

district court to take into account" on a motion for a preliminary

injunction). Although perhaps not irreparable harm, Plaintiff has

shown serious harm that will be caused by beginning construction on

the Intertie Project before the Court rules on the cross motions. 

That harm, however, must be balanced with the harm to Defendant and

Intervenors.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant and its contractors will

suffer little or no harm from a delay. But Defendant has shown

that it will suffer a financial hardship. If construction of the

Intertie Project is halted, Defendant will either have to suspend

or terminate the construction contract; both alternatives are

costly. Under contract suspension, Defendant is still responsible

for the contractor's daily cost; Defendant estimates that, given

the size of the contract, the cost would amount to $3,000 to $5,000

per day. In addition, Defendant would be responsible for any

escalated cost of material and labor. If Defendant terminated the

contract, it would be responsible for all costs incurred by the

contractor through the time the contract is terminated and for

anticipatory profits, which it estimates would exceed one million

dollars. 

In addition to the financial harm it would experience,

Defendant points to the harm that others, such as the public

agencies who have advanced twenty-five million dollars toward

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 15 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

project construction, would experience. Intervenors note that

member districts are not earning any interest on that twenty-five

million dollars, at a cost of about $2,600 per day. They further

note that, if the Intertie Project is not completed for use from

January through March of 2007, CVP water users south of the Delta

stand to lose up to 793 acre-feet of water supply during those

months. Defendant asserts that the public interests at stake weigh

in favor of the Intertie Project moving forward. It does not

address Plaintiff's argument that the general public would be

benefitted by an injunction because agencies can make better

decisions, and adopt better policies and projects, if informed by

adequate, and required, environmental studies.

The Court regrets the tax-payer dollars that will have to be

spent due to the granting of this temporary restraining order, but

those dollars could have been saved had Defendant conducted an EIS

or waited to commit to a construction contract until after the

legal challenges were resolved. Balancing the hardships that each

side will suffer, the Court finds that the balance tips sharply in

Plaintiff's favor. Environmental injury, as noted above, generally

cannot be adequately remedied by money damages and it is often

permanent. Defendant has acknowledged that the Delta is a

"critical resource" in "steady decline." CALFED Bay-Delta Program

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental

Impact Report, 1-2.

III. Bond

Plaintiff states that it is a non-profit corporation pursuing

environmental litigation in the public interest and requests that

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 16 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 17

the Court dispense with any security requirement. See People of

State of Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325-26 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding that the

district court properly exercised its discretion to allow a nonprofit environmental group to proceed without posting a bond). 

Defendant objects to this request and asks the Court require a bond

in the amount of at least $50,000, which would reflect the high-end

amount of costs that Defendant would experience due to a temporary

restraining order lasting ten days. Citing Save Our Sonoran, Inc.

v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005), Defendant notes that

environmental organizations are not exempt from the bond

requirement. In Save Our Sonoran, the court affirmed the district

court's requirement of a $50,000 bond from an environmental

organization. 408 F.3d at 1126. But the court also recognized

that it has affirmed nominal bonds in public interest cases. Each

case is fact-specific, and the court found that, as long as a

district court does not set such a high bond that it serves to

thwart citizen actions, it does not abuse its discretion. Id. 

Intervenors also request that Plaintiff be required to post a

bond. Noting that Plaintiff is a consortium of over one-hundred

environmental organizations, Intervenors argue that, based on

Plaintiff's size alone, it should have the resources to post a bond

sufficient to protect the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority

from any costs or damages resulting from being wrongfully

restrained.

Because Plaintiff is a public interest organization, the Court

will not require it to post a bond. 

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 17 of 18
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 18

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's

application for a temporary restraining order. Defendant is

enjoined from beginning construction on the Intertie Project until

the preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiff's motion for a

preliminary injunction will be heard on February 14, 2006, at 2:00

p.m. If Defendant and/or Intervenors wish to file additional

briefing, they must do so before noon on February 7, 2006;

Plaintiff has until noon on February 9, 2006, to reply. The

parties may stipulate to a longer briefing schedule and later

hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/3/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 86 Filed 02/22/06 Page 18 of 18