Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03527/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03527-0/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,

Proposed Intervenors. /

No. C 05-3527 CW

ORDER GRANTING,

IN PART, PROPOSED

INTERVENORS'

MOTION TO

INTERVENE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, Applicants San

Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (the Authority) and Westlands

Water District (Westlands) move to intervene as defendants in this

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 14
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

action. Collectively, the Authority and Westlands are referred to

as Proposed Intervenors. Plaintiff Planning and Conversation

League (PCL) opposes this motion. Defendant United States Bureau

of Reclamation (the Bureau) opposes this motion in part. The

matter was heard on November 18, 2005. Having considered all of

the papers filed by the parties and oral argument, the Court

GRANTS, in part, Proposed Intervenors' motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Underlying Action

In this action, PCL 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 Bay-Delta is the largest

estuary on the west coast of the Americas. Millions of

Californians depend on the Bay-Delta as a source of drinking water. 

According to PCL, the Bay-Delta is also one of California's most

threatened ecosystems and a primary cause of the environmental

problems is the network of diversion pumps. 

The proposed pipeline at issue is known as the Delta-Mendota

Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie (Intertie Project). The primary

purpose of the Intertie Project is to restore CVP capacity that has

been lost due to problems with the operation of the Delta-Mendota

Canal. The Project will allow 400 cubic feet per second of water

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 14
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

to be pumped from the Delta-Mendota Canal into the California

Aqueduct and, from there, the water will be moved southward and

redistributed to CVP contractors. 

In September, 2004, the Bureau and the Authority completed a

joint environmental review of the Intertie Project titled "DeltaMendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie Proposed Finding of No

Significant Impact/Negative Declaration and Draft Environmental

Assessment/Initial Study" (Intertie EA/IS). The Authority's staff

reviewed and made comments on all drafts and the final version of

materials incorporated into the review. 

The Intertie EA/IS was released for public comment in

November, 2004. The Authority participated in the joint

circulation of the review and in preparing responses to comments,

which were incorporated into the final document. PCL and others

submitted comments on this study. PCL 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.

On April 21, 2005, the Authority filed a negative declaration

finding that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) did

not require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Intertie

Project. PCL did not seek judicial review of the Authority's CEQA

compliance. On May 24, 2005, the Bureau approved a finding that

the Intertie Project would have no significant environmental

effects and that the Bureau had fulfilled its NEPA obligations. 

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 14
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

Since completing the Intertie EA/IS, the Authority and the

Bureau have moved forward with the Intertie Project. (Frances

Mizuno Dec. ¶ 18). The Project's design is complete. On September

28, 2005, the Bureau awarded the supply contract for the purchase

of pumps, gates and valves. A solicitation for the prime

construction contract has been issued; bids were due on October 14,

2005 and an award was expected on November 18, 2005. The Authority

and its member agencies have committed to fund $25 million of the

Intertie Project's total budget of $27.5 million. (Id. at ¶ 15). 

If project costs escalate due to delay, the Authority's members

will be faced with a choice of agreeing to fund cost overruns or

abandoning the project and losing the investment and potential

water supply benefits. (Id. at ¶ 17). 

On August 31, 2005, PCL filed the instant action against the

Bureau, seeking to enjoin the Intertie Project until the Bureau

complies with the NEPA by preparing an EIS.

II. Applicants for Intervention

Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene as defendants in the

action as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2),

or, in the alternative, permissively under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 24(b)(2).

The Authority has thirty-two member water agencies that

contract with the United States for water stored, pumped and

conveyed by the CVP. Among other purposes, the Authority was

formed to preserve and protect the rights and benefits of the

member agencies in their contracts. The Authority develops and

disseminates information to legislative and administrative bodies;

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 4 of 14
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

exercises common powers of its members to participate in

administrative and judicial proceedings; and is authorized to

commence and maintain lawsuits on behalf of its member agencies. 

The Authority also operates and maintains certain CVP facilities

under a contract with the Bureau.

Westlands is a member agency of the Authority. It is a

California water district formed pursuant to California Water Code

sections 34000 et seq., authorized to intervene in any proceeding

involving or affecting the ownership or use of water within its

district. Westlands holds vested contractual water rights to

receive water from the Bureau through the San Luis Unit of the CVP

for distribution and irrigation of lands within areas of Fresno and

Kings Counties. Westlands also holds vested contractual rights to

receive additional waters from the CVP under the Stipulated

Judgment entered on December 30, 1986 in the consolidated cases of

Barcellos and Wolfsen, Inc., et al. v. Westlands Water District and

Westlands Water District v. United States of America, Nos. CV 79-

106 OWW and CV F-89-245 OWW (E.D. Cal.). Westlands encompasses

approximately 600,000 acres including productive agricultural

lands. 

LEGAL STANDARD

To intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 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. 1995). The Ninth Circuit applies a four-part test

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 5 of 14
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

to motions under Rule 24(a):

(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 protected by the parties to the action.

Id. (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1481 (9th Cir.

1993)) (citation omitted). 

The Ninth Circuit interprets Rule 24(a) broadly in favor of

intervention. Id. In evaluating a motion to intervene under Rule

24(a), a district court is required “to take all well-pleaded,

nonconclusory 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 court may also at its discretion permit intervention “when

an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question

of law or fact in common.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). In

exercising its discretion, a court is to “consider whether the

intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the

rights of the original parties.” Id. 

DISCUSSION

I. Intervention as of Right Under Rule 24(a)(2)

Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that the Ninth Circuit

generally has held that intervention as of right at the liability

phase of a NEPA action is not allowed. But, Proposed Intervenors

argue that this case distinguishes itself because the court has not

considered intervention where a federal agency and a local agency

prepare and rely on a joint environmental review document. PCL

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 6 of 14
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

responds that the Ninth Circuit's holdings admit of no such

exception. The Bureau agrees that Proposed Intervenors are not

permitted to intervene as of right at the liability phase. 

"As a general rule, 'the federal government is the only proper

defendant in an action to compel compliance with NEPA.'" Wetlands

Action Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 222 F.3d

1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Churchill County v. Babbitt,

150 F.3d 1072, 1082, as amended by 158 F.3d 491 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

The rationale for this rule is that "because NEPA requires action

only by the government, only the government can be liable under

NEPA." Churchill County, 150 F.3d at 1082. "Because a private

party cannot violate NEPA, it cannot be a defendant in a NEPA

compliance action." Wetlands Action Network, 222 F.3d at 1114

(citing Churchill County, 150 F.3d at 1082). The Ninth Circuit 

permits an exception to this general rule at the remedial phase of

the case where the contractual rights of the non-federal party may

be affected by the proposed remedy. Forest Conservation Council v.

United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1495-99 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Authority was involved in the preparation, circulation and

public comment stages of the Intertie EA/IS. Relying on this fact,

Proposed Intervenors contend that the general rule against

intervention for non-federal parties in a NEPA compliance action

does not apply in this case because the Authority has a

significantly protectable interest in the adequacy of the Intertie

EA/IS it jointly prepared with the Bureau. 

The fact that the Authority assisted the Bureau with its

statutory requirements, however, does not create a significantly

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 7 of 14
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

protectable interest. Although NEPA regulations encourage

cooperation between federal and local agencies in conducting

research, preparing assessments and complying with other State and

local laws, see 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.5(b) and 1502.6, the NEPA and its

regulations ultimately hold federal agencies responsible for

complying with these provisions "to the fullest extent possible." 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.6(b),(c). They do not prescribe or regulate the

Authority's involvement. The Authority cannot violate the NEPA

and, therefore, it is not a "proper defendant in an action to

compel compliance with NEPA." Churchill County, 150 F.3d at 1082. 

Proposed Intervenors also claim intervention as of right is

warranted because the case challenges the same environmental review

documents the Authority relied upon for its CEQA compliance. They

contend that an injunction against the Bureau would have the same

preclusive effect on the Authority, preventing it from moving

forward with construction of the Project. In addition, if further

environmental review is ordered, the Authority will have to assist

the Bureau with such a review. Thus, Proposed Intervenors argue

that the Authority's legally protected interest in the finality of

its CEQA compliance is threatened by the present suit. 

The Ninth Circuit has not had an occasion to rule in a case

presenting this situation; however, the court's holdings are clear

that private parties, even those with interests in the outcome of

the litigation, may not intervene as of right in NEPA compliance

actions against the federal government, except at the remedial

phase. Because the Court grants permissive intervention to

Proposed Intervenors at the remedial phase, it is unnecessary to

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 8 of 14
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 9

decide whether intervention as of right should be granted at the

remedial phase. 

Therefore, Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene as of

right is denied. 

II. Permissive Intervention Under Rule 24(b)

Proposed Intervenors contend that permissive intervention

should be granted because their defenses raise common questions of

law and fact and intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice

the rights of the original parties. PCL counters that Proposed

Intervenors are not entitled to permissive intervention because the

Bureau adequately represents their interests. Furthermore, PCL

asserts that Proposed Intervenors cannot present any new questions

and that intervention would burden the parties by delaying the

proceedings. At the hearing, the Bureau opposed permissive

intervention in this case.

"Unlike Rule 24(a), a 'significant protectable interest' is

not required by Rule 24(b) for intervention; all that is necessary

for permissive intervention is that intervenor's 'claim or defense

and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.'" 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)). Rule 24(b) "plainly

dispenses with any requirement that the intervenor shall have a

direct personal or pecuniary interest in the subject of the

litigation." SEC v. U.S. Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434,

459 (1940). Proposed Intervenors seek to defend against PCL's NEPA

non-compliance claim by asserting the adequacy of the Intertie

EA/IS. Thus, Proposed Intervenors raise common questions of law

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 9 of 14
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 10

and fact at issue in this case.

When exercising its discretion to grant permissive

intervention, a court must also consider "whether the intervention

will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of

the original parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). PCL claims that

intervention would create a burden on the existing parties because

there will be additional questions, briefs, arguments and motions. 

Moreover, PCL observes that Proposed Intervenors have intimated

that they will bring a motion for change of venue, further delaying

the proceedings. Proposed Intervenors' Answer ¶ 9. Proposed

Intervenors respond that they will not add any new affirmative

claims nor unduly delay the proceedings. 

"Rule 24 traditionally receives liberal construction in favor

of applicants for intervention," in which courts "are guided

primarily by practical and equitable considerations." Arakai v.

Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Donnelly v.

Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998)). Accordingly, where

the Court can dispose of lawsuits by involving as many interests as

compatible with practical considerations of judicial efficiency and

equitable considerations of fairness to a party with defenses of

common law and fact, permissive intervention is favored. See

Greene v. United States, 996 F.2d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 1993);

Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Because the case is in the early stages of proceedings,

intervention would not necessarily delay or prejudice the parties. 

Moreover, Proposed Intervenors' economic interests will be harmed

by any delay, providing further incentive for timely adjudication. 

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 10 of 14
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

Therefore, permissive intervention in this case would not unduly

delay or prejudice PCL or the Bureau. 

Even if Proposed Intervenors satisfy the necessary

prerequisites for permissive intervention, intervention should be

denied where their interests are adequately represented by the

Bureau. Rodriguez v. Ridge, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1157 (C.D. Cal.

2003) (citing People of the State of California v. Tahoe Reg'l

Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 1986)). To determine

whether the Bureau adequately represents Proposed Intervenors, the

Court considers: 

(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it

will undoubtedly make all the intervenor's arguments; 

(2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make

such arguments; and (3) whether the would-be intervenor would

offer any necessary elements to the proceedings that other

parties would neglect. 

Northwest Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 838 (9th

Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). "The prospective intervenor bears

the burden of demonstrating that existing parties do not adequately

represent its interests." United States v. City of Los Angeles,

288 F.3d 391, 398 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the burden of showing

that representation "may be" inadequate is "minimal." Arakai, 324

F.3d at 1086 (quoting Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S.

528, 538 n.10 (1972)).

With regard to the third criteria for adequate representation,

the Authority was involved intimately in preparing the Intertie

EA/IS, which is the target of PCL's claims that the Bureau has not

sufficiently satisfied the NEPA's legal requirements. Thus, the

Authority argues that its participation could offer a more complete

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 11 of 14
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

record of the joint environmental review. However, its

intervention is not necessary to accomplish this result. 

Accordingly, the Bureau will adequately represent the Proposed

Intervenors' interests at the liability phase. The Proposed

Intervenors may not intervene at the liability phase, but may

participate as amici.

However, Proposed Intervenors, particularly the Authority, as

a direct beneficiary of the Intertie Project and as joint author of

the environmental review, may bring an element at the remedial

phase of the case that existing parties would neglect, especially

with regards to assessments of alternative projects or settlement

discussions. 

Although they share the objective of defeating PCL's claims,

Proposed Intervenors and the Bureau do not share identical

interests. See Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg,

268 F.3d 810, 823 (9th Cir. 2001) (sharing of ultimate objective

creates a presumption of adequate representation that is rebutted

where applicant and defendant do not have sufficiently congruent

interests). The Authority is focused primarily on its contractual

obligations to restore pumping capacity and use of the canal and

water supply. Significantly, the Authority and its member agencies

will bear most of the costs of the Intertie Project and are

directly harmed by delays or diminishment of the water supply

provided by the Project. Furthermore, the Bureau has broader

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 12 of 14
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 The original purposes of the CVP included navigation, flood

control, the storage and delivery of water for irrigation and

generation of hydropower. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, § 2,

50 Stat. 850. In 1992, these purposes were amended to add

"domestic uses, and fish and wildlife mitigation, protection and

restoration purposes." Central Valley Project Improvement Act,

Pub.L.No. 105-575, title 34, § 3402, 106 Stat. 4706, 4714 (1992).

13

interests in the CVP than the Authority.1 The Bureau is charged

with presenting the public interest in the Project, not the

Authority's economic concerns. Courts have found that where

intervenors have narrower, parochial interests, the government may

not adequately represent those interests. See Forest Conservation

Council, 66 F.3d at 1499; Berg, 268 F.3d at 823. Because their

interests diverge, it cannot be said that the Bureau will

undoubtedly make all of Proposed Intervenors' arguments at the

remedial phase. Thus, the first and second criteria for

determining inadequate representation are also satisfied. 

PCL argues that, because Proposed Intervenors will not raise

any new questions, they deserve, at best, amicus status. But,

Proposed Intervenors correctly note that amicus status does not

sufficiently protect their interests because amici cannot raise 

issues or arguments not raised by the parties, and cannot appeal. 

City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d at 400 (citing Forest Conservation

Council, 66 F.3d at 1498).

Therefore, the Court finds that Proposed Intervenors have met

their minimal burden of showing that the Bureau may not adequately

represent their interests at the remedial phase. 

Therefore, the Court grants Proposed Intervenors permissive

intervention at the remedial phase.

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 13 of 14
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Proposed

Intervenors permissive intervention at the remedial phase and

amicus status at the liability phase of this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/3/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03527-CW Document 24 Filed 01/03/06 Page 14 of 14