Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. US Dept. of Interior, et al, No. 1:2010cv00712 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Re: The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District's Motion to Intervene 23 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/28/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1:10-cv-00712 OWW DLB Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOS, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; UNITES STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; MICHAEL L. CONNOR, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of Reclamation, and DONALD R. GLASER, in his official capacity as Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for the Mid-Pacific Region, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE THE SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY AND WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT S MOTION TO INTERVENE (DOC. 23.) Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority ( SLDMWA ) and the Westlands Water District ( Westlands ) (collectively, Applicants ) move for leave to intervene in this case as of 23 24 25 right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or in the alternative to permissively intervene under Rule 24(b). Doc. 26 24, filed April 16, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a statement of non- 27 opposition, Docs. 32, and Federal Defendants failed to file any 28 1 1 opposition by the June 14, 2010 deadline for the filing of 2 opposition papers. 3 without oral argument. 4 5 6 7 8 The matter has been submitted for decision Doc. 33. II. BACKGROUND A. The Claims in This Case. Plaintiff Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority ( TCCA ) is a joint powers authority under California Government Code § 6500 et seq. 9 Sixteen of TCCA s members are public agencies that supply water 10 to agricultural or to municipal and industrial users or both. 11 Doc. 1 ¶5. 12 Project ( CVP ) pursuant to a Long-Term Renewal Contract 13 14 15 Each member receives water from the Central Valley Providing for Project Water Service From the Sacramento River Division ( Contract ) with Reclamation. Id. Federal Defendants 16 entered into and administer the Contract. Doc. 1 ¶6. 17 contracts with TCCA members contain terms that authorize 18 Reclamation to apportion water in time of shortage. 19 20 21 22 23 24 The CVP In any Year in which there may occur a shortage for any of the reasons specified in subdivision (b) above, the Contracting Officer shall apportion the available Project Water supply among the Contractor and others entitled, under existing contracts and future contracts ¦and renewals thereof, to receive Project Water consistent with the contractual obligations of the United States. Doc. 24 1:17-24. 25 26 27 28 The Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeks an order prohibiting Defendants from exporting water supplies from 2 1 the Sacramento River watershed until TCCA members receive present 2 and future beneficial needs. 3 4 Doc. 1 ¶16. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants export of CVP water supplies from the Sacramento River watershed to the San Joaquin Valley does not comply with 5 6 federal and/or state law. Doc. 1 ¶9. Plaintiff further alleges 7 that TCCA members are entitled to full contractual supplies for 8 the beneficial needs of its members. Doc. 1 at 12, Prayer 1. 9 10 11 12 13 B. The Applicants. 1. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. SLDMWA, a joint powers authority, represents the common interests of 29 member water agencies. Nelson Decl., Doc. 25, at 14 ¶2. Similar to members of the TCCA, members of SLDMWA contract 15 with the United States for water supply stored, pumped and 16 conveyed by the CVP. 17 facilities under contract with Reclamation, including the Jones 18 Pumping Plant. SLDMWA operates and maintains CVP Id. at ¶4. SLDMWA also operates and maintains 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Delta-Mendota Canal, which delivers water to member agencies. Doc. 24 4:13-14. The SLDMWA members serve areas south of the Delta largely dependent on water exported from the Delta: The water supplied to SLDMWA s member agencies is pumped from the Delta through the Jones Pumping Plant and has been use to meet the water supply needs of over 2.8 million acres of agricultural lands...Member agencies also provide approximately 350,000 acre-feet of water to wildlife refuges for habitat enhancement 3 1 and restoration activities. Finally, these water supplies support municipal and industrial uses, including within the City of Tracy and urban areas within Santa Clara County. 2 3 4 Nelson Decl. at ¶6. 5 2. Westlands Water District. 6 Westlands, a water district formed pursuant California Water 7 Code §§ 34000 et seq., is a member agency of SLDMWA. 8 Decl. at ¶1. 9 10 11 12 Under contract with Reclamation, Westlands receives water through the San Luis Unit of the CVP. Id. year. The majority of the CVP water supply is used for Id. irrigation. 14 of arable land. 15 Westlands includes approximately 600,000 acres Id. III. DISCUSSION 16 Applicants moves to intervene as of right or, in the 17 19 Freeman Decl. at ¶2. This contract entitles Westlands to 1.15 million acre feet per 13 18 Freeman alternative, to permissively intervene. A. Intervention as of Right. 20 1. 21 Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 24. Legal Standard. To intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2), an 23 24 25 applicant must claim an interest, the protection of which may, as a practical matter, be impaired or impeded if the lawsuit Forest Conservation Council v. 26 proceeds without the applicant. 27 United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1993). 28 4 1 The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 24(a) liberally, in favor of 2 intervention, and requires a district court to take all well- 3 pleaded, non-conclusory allegations in the motion as true absent 4 sham, frivolity or other objections. Southwest Ctr. for 5 6 7 8 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: 9 (1) the motion must be timely; 10 (2) the applicant must claim a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; 11 12 (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 13 14 15 (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1493. 2. Timeliness. In assessing timeliness, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider: (1) the current stage of the proceedings; (2) whether 22 the existing parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for 23 any delay in moving to intervene. 24 Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). 25 the complaint was filed on February 11, 2010. Doc. 1. 26 27 28 League of United Latin Am. moved to intervene on April 16, 2010. Doc. 24. Here, Applicants Existing parties are not prejudiced when the motion was filed before the district 5 Northwest Forest Resource 1 court made any substantive rulings. 2 Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 substantive rulings have been made in this case. 4 No Accordingly, The motion to intervene is timely. 5 6 3. 7 To demonstrate a significantly protectable interest, a 8 9 10 Significant Protectable Interests 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 11 12 13 claims at issue. Id. Here, among other remedies, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin 14 Federal Defendants from exporting CVP water supplies outside the 15 Sacramento River watershed whenever such supplies are needed to 16 meet the full contractual supplies for the beneficial needs of 17 TCCA Members. 18 19 20 21 22 Doc. 1 at 12, Prayer 1. Should Plaintiffs obtain the relief they request under this claim, Reclamation would be restricted from providing water supplies to SLDMWA s member agencies, including Westlands. Applicants contend that SLDMWA members already receive 23 reduced water supply due to increasing regulation. 24 Plaintiffs seek would further reduced Applicants water supply. 25 To the extent that the district court considers and rules upon 26 27 28 The relief any of these matters in the context of this litigation, such rulings may implicate Applicants interests. 6 1 4. 2 Disposition of this action may, as a practical matter, Impairment of Interests 3 impair or impede Applicants abilities to protect their 4 interests. 5 This requirement demands only a showing that the applicant would be substantially affected in a practical sense 6 7 8 by the determination made in an action. F.3d at 822. Southwest Ctr., 268 An injunction prohibiting the Federal Defendants 9 from exporting CVP water supplies until Plaintiffs receive full 10 contractual supplies would significantly impair or impede the 11 Applicants interests. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 5. Existing Parties' Ability to Represent Applicants' Interests. The remaining issue is whether the Applicants interests are adequately protected by other defendants. 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 23 (3) whether the applicant offers a necessary element to the proceedings that otherwise would be neglected. 24 Id. at 823. [T]he requirement of inadequacy of representation is 25 satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of its 26 interests may be inadequate .... [T]he burden of making this 27 showing is minimal. 28 Sagebrush Rebellion Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 7 1 2 3 4 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, the Applicants maintain that they represent specific concerns of CVP contractors and water users not represented by any other party. Doc. 24 at 13:5-6. Applicants cite several 5 6 7 cases for the proposition that Federal Defendants must represent public policy interests and cannot be expected to represent See Southwest Ctr., 268 F.3d 8 private interests. Doc. 24 13:9-18. 9 at 823 (applicants not adequately represented by government 10 agencies whose interests are not simply to confirm the 11 applicant s interests, but include a broader range of 12 13 14 15 considerations ). Applicants further assert that the Federal Defendants cannot represent the narrowly focused concerns of the Proposed Intervenors. See Georgia v. United States Army Corps of 16 Eng rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1259 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding federal 17 defendant with interest in management or a resource did not have 18 interests identical to an entity with economic interests in the 19 use of that resource). 20 adequately represented by the Federal Defendants in that they are 21 The Applicants interests are not a competing water user seeking to protect south of Delta water 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 contractors CVP allocations. No other party represents this position. IV. CONCLUSION The Applicants satisfy all of the requirements for intervention as a matter of right. 8 It is not necessary to 1 address the Applicants alternative request for permissive 2 intervention. 3 4 Applicants' unopposed motion to intervene as a matter of right is GRANTED, conditioned upon strictly limiting their 5 6 7 participation to issues about which they can provide unique information and/or arguments. 8 9 SO ORDERED 10 Dated: 11 12 June 28, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
