Friant Water Authority et al v. Jewell et al, No. 1:2014cv00765 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY'S AND WESTLANDS' MOTION TO INTERVENE 31 is GRANTED signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on May 27, 2014. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 FRIANT WATER AUTHORITY, et al., 9 10 Case No. 1:14-CV-000765-LJO-BAM Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY S AND WESTLANDS MOTION TO INTERVENE (DOC. 31) v. 11 SALLY JEWELL, as Secretary of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE 12 INTERIOR, et al., 13 14 15 Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This suit concerns the United States Bureau of Reclamation s ( Reclamation ) release of water 16 from Millerton Lake/Friant Dam, features of the Friant Unit of the Central Valley Project ( CVP ), to 17 supply water to the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority and its member districts 18 ( Exchange Contractors ). The Friant Water Authority and its member agencies (collectively, 19 Plaintiffs ), which also contact for and depend upon water deliveries from the Friant Unit, 20 acknowledge the priority of the Exchange Contractors contracts with Reclamation, but allege that 21 Reclamation s actions are unlawful because the Exchange Contractors demands should be satisfied first 22 from sources other than Millerton. Doc. 1. Plaintiffs further allege that Reclamation s actions are 23 causing them harm because water released from Millerton will not be available to satisfy Plaintiffs own 24 needs. 25 Plaintiffs name as defendants in this action Reclamation and related federal entities and officers, 26 as well as two water districts that manage wildlife refuges in the San Joaquin Valley, Grassland Water 1 1 District ( GWD ), and Grassland Resource Conservation District ( GRCD ) (collectively, 2 Grasslands ), which districts Plaintiffs maintain are receiving water from sources other than Millerton, 3 water that Plaintiffs allege should be delivered to the Exchange Contractors to prevent the need for 4 releases from Millerton. 5 On May 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that would, among 6 other things, require the Bureau to provide water to the Exchange Contractors from sources other than 7 Millerton. On May 22, 2014, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority ( SLDMWA ) and Westlands 8 Water District ( Westlands) (collectively, Applicants ) moved to intervene in this matter as of right or 9 in the alternative for permissive intervention. Doc. 32. 10 II. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT. 11 A. Applicants. 12 SLDMWA was formed in 1992 as a joint powers authority, and has its principal office in Los 13 Banos, California. Declaration of Daniel Nelson, Doc. 35, at ¶ 2. SLDMWA is comprised of 28 member 14 water agencies that contract with the United States for water supply stored, pumped and conveyed by the 15 CVP. Id. SLDMWA also operates and maintains certain CVP facilities under a contract with 16 Reclamation. Id. at ¶ 4. One such facility is the Jones Pumping Plant, located in the southern portion of 17 the Delta, near the City of Tracy. Id. SLDMWA also operates and maintains the Delta-Mendota Canal, 18 which delivers water to member agencies. Id. The SLDMWA member agencies serve areas on the west 19 side of the San Joaquin Valley south of the Delta. The water supplied to SLDMWA s member agencies 20 is pumped from the Delta through the Jones Pumping Plant and has been used to meet the water supply 21 needs of over 2.8 million acres of agricultural lands within areas of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, 22 Fresno, Kings, San Benito and Santa Clara Counties. Id. at ¶ 6. Member agencies also provide 23 approximately 350,000 acre-feet of water to wildlife refuges for habitat enhancement and restoration 24 activities. Id. Finally, these water supplies support municipal and industrial uses, including within the 25 City of Tracy and urban areas within Santa Clara County. Id. 26 Westlands is a member agency of SLDMWA. Declaration of Russell Freeman, Doc. 33, at ¶ 1. 2 1 Westlands contracts with Reclamation to receive water through the San Luis Unit of the CVP, for 2 distribution and consumption within areas of Fresno and Kings Counties. Id. at ¶ 2. Westlands total 3 contractual entitlement from the CVP under this contract is 1.15 million acre feet per year. Id. In 4 addition, Westlands holds 43,500 acre-feet of water entitlement in the form of contract assignments from 5 other districts including Broadview Water District, Centinella Water District, Widren Water District, 6 and Oro Loma Water District. Id. Most of this CVP water supply is used for irrigation. Id. Westlands 7 encompasses approximately 600,000 acres. Id. 8 9 Applicants move to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, to permissively intervene. B. Intervention as of Right. 10 1. 11 Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. To intervene as a matter of right Legal Standard. 12 under Rule 24(a)(2), an applicant must claim an interest, the protection of which may, as a practical 13 matter, be impaired or impeded if the lawsuit proceeds without the applicant. Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. 14 Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 24(a) liberally, in 15 favor of intervention, and requires a district court to take all well-pleaded, non-conclusory allegations 16 in the motion as true absent sham, frivolity or other objections. S.W. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 17 Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). A four-part test is used to evaluate a motion for intervention of 18 right: 19 (1) the motion must be timely; 20 (2) the applicant must claim a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; 21 (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 22 23 (4) the applicant s interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action. 24 25 Wilderness Soc., 630 F.3d at 1177. 26 2. Timeliness. 3 1 In assessing timeliness, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider: (1) the current stage of the 2 proceedings; (2) whether the existing parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for any delay in 3 moving to intervene. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 4 1997). Applicants moved to intervene two days after this action was initiated. There can be no debate 5 that the motion is timely. 6 3. 7 Here, it is practical to treat the third and fourth factors together. To demonstrate a significantly 8 protectable interest, a prospective intervenor must establish that (1) the interest asserted is protectable 9 under some law, and (2) there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at Significant Protectable Interests/Impairment of Interests. 10 issue. Wilderness Soc., 630 F.3d at 1181. Finally, intervention of right is only appropriate where 11 disposition of this action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede Applicants abilities to protect 12 their interests. This requirement demands only a showing that the applicant would be substantially 13 affected in a practical sense by the determination made in an action. S.W. Ctr., 268 F.3d at 822. 14 Here, the relief Plaintiffs seek would further limit Reclamation s already limited discretion and 15 ability to allocate CVP shortages among CVP contractors. Such a ruling would likely reduce the water 16 supplies available to the areas served by Applicants, by providing Plaintiffs a priority to water (at least 17 vis-à-vis CVP contractors such as Applicants). Applicants possess contractually protected interests in 18 deliveries from the CVP. In light of the potential adverse consequences to Applicants interests if 19 Plaintiffs obtain the relief they seek, the Court concludes that Applicants have satisfied the third and 20 fourth prongs of the intervention as of right test. 21 4. 22 The remaining issue is whether Applicants interests are adequately protected by other parties. In 23 Existing Parties Ability to Represent Applicants Interests. assessing the adequacy of representation, the Ninth Circuit looks at three factors: 24 (1) whether the existing parties will undoubtedly make all of the applicant s arguments; 25 (2) whether the existing parties are capable of and willing to make the applicant s arguments; 26 and 4 1 (3) 2 be neglected. whether the applicant offers a necessary element to the proceedings that otherwise would 3 Id. at 823. [T]he requirement of inadequacy of representation is satisfied if the applicant shows that 4 representation of its interests may be inadequate.... [T]he burden of making this showing is minimal. 5 Sagebrush Rebellion Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 It is well-settled precedent in this circuit that [w]here an applicant for intervention and an 7 existing party have the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises. 8 League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 131 F.3d at 1305; see also Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 9 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). This presumption is triggered here because Applicants and Federal Defendants 10 share a similar objective of upholding Reclamation s releases from Millerton. However, the presumption 11 is rebuttable upon a showing that the applicant and the existing parties do not have sufficiently 12 congruent interests. S.W. Ctr., 268 F.3d at 823. 13 Applicants interests diverge from existing Federal Defendants, who, as operators of the entire 14 CVP, have responsibilities to protect multiple interests. See Georgia v. United States Army Corps of 15 Eng rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1259 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding federal defendant with interest in management of 16 a resource did not have interests identical to an entity with economic interests in the use of that 17 resource). Moreover, Applicants are particularly concerned that imposing additional constraints upon 18 Reclamation s discretion would increase the likelihood that Reclamation would impose shortages upon 19 Applicants, a concern that, while assuredly shared by Reclamation, is not of equal import to or impact 20 upon Reclamation itself. 21 Applicants satisfy all of the requirements for intervention as a matter of right. It is not necessary 22 to address Applicants alternative request for permissive intervention. 23 24 III. CONCLUSION Applicants motion to intervene as a defendant as a matter of right is GRANTED, conditioned 25 upon strictly limiting their participation solely to issues about which they can provide non-repetitive, 26 unique information and/or arguments. The Court notes that Applicants brief in opposition to the 5 1 pending request for a temporary restraining order substantially overlaps with those filed by other parties. 2 In the future, the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to avoid such duplication. 3 SO ORDERED Dated: May 27, 2014 4 5 /s/ Lawrence J. O Neill United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6

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.