Friant Water Authority et al v. Jewell et al, No. 1:2014cv00765 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE 24 is GRANTED signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on May 27, 2014. (Munoz, I)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FRIANT WATER AUTHORITY, et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-000765-LJO-BAM Plaintiffs, 8 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS MOTION TO INTERVENE (DOC. 24) v. 9 SALLY JEWELL, as Secretary of the UNITED 10 STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 13 This suit concerns the United States Bureau of Reclamation s ( Reclamation ) release of water 14 from Millerton Lake/Friant Dam, features of the Friant Unit of the Central Valley Project ( CVP ), to 15 supply water to the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority and its member districts 16 17 ( Exchange Contractors )1. The Friant Water Authority and its member agencies (collectively, Plaintiffs ), which also contract for and depend upon water deliveries from the Friant Unit, 18 acknowledge the priority of the Exchange Contractors contracts with Reclamation, but allege that 19 Reclamation s actions are unlawful because the Exchange Contractors demands should be satisfied first 20 from sources other than Millerton. Doc. 1. Plaintiffs further allege that Reclamation s actions are 21 causing them harm because water released from Millerton will not be available to satisfy Plaintiffs own 22 needs. 23 Plaintiffs name as defendants in this action Reclamation and related federal entities and officers, 24 as well as two water districts that manage wildlife refuges in the San Joaquin Valley, Grassland Water 25 26 1 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Authority is made up of the Central California Irrigation District, the San Luis Canal Company, Firebaugh Canal Water District and Columbia Canal Company. Doc. 24 at 2. 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. Plaintiffs did not name the Exchange Contractors as defendants. 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, the Exchange Contractors ( Applicants ) moved to intervene in this matter 8 as of right or in the alternative for permissive intervention. Doc. 24. 9 II. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT. 10 A. Applicants. 11 Applicants have been succinctly described by the Ninth Circuit as follows: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 To fulfill the purposes of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937, the Secretary of the Interior was given the right to acquire water rights for the development of the CVP. Act of August 26, 1937, Pub. L. No. 75 392, 50 Stat. 844, 850. The Exchange Contractors hold both pre-1914 riparian and appropriative rights to the San Joaquin River. Cal. State Water Rights Bd. Dec. D 935, 80 (1959). The district court noted that the cooperation of the Exchange Contractors made possible the expansion of the CVP and the San Luis Unit. Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 153 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1146 47 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (Westlands VI ). To provide a reliable source of water for its proposed canals, the Bureau had to assure that the Exchange Contractors pre-existing rights would be satisfied. [Westlands Water Dist. v. Patterson], 864 F. Supp. [1536,] 1539 [(E.D. Cal. 1994)]. In 1939, the Exchange Contractors entered into two contracts with the United States: a Purchase Contract and an Exchange Contract. Under the Purchase Contract, the Exchange Contractors sold all [of] their San Joaquin River water rights to the United States, except for reserved water, water to which the Exchange Contractors [hold] vested rights. Simultaneously, under the Exchange Contract, the Exchange Contractors agreed not to exercise their [reserved water] rights to the San Joaquin River, so long as they receive certain volumes of substitute water. Id. Pursuant to the Exchange Contract, the exchange of water is a conditional permanent substitution of water supply. The United States has a right to use the Exchange Contractors water rights so long as, and only so long as, the United States does deliver to the Contracting Entities by means of the Project or otherwise substitute water in conformity with this contract. The Exchange Contract defines substitute water as all water delivered ... regardless of source. The contract further provides that [i]t is 2 1 anticipated that most if not all of the substitute water provided the [Exchange Contractors ] hereunder will be delivered to them via the [ ] Delta Mendota Canal. 2 3 Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted). 4 5 Applicants move to intervene as of right or, in the alternative, to permissively intervene. B. Intervention as of Right. 6 1. 7 Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. To intervene as a matter of right Legal Standard. 8 under Rule 24(a)(2), an applicant must claim an interest, the protection of which may, as a practical 9 matter, be impaired or impeded if the lawsuit proceeds without the applicant. Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. 10 Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 24(a) liberally, in 11 favor of intervention, and requires a district court to take all well-pleaded, non-conclusory allegations 12 in the motion as true absent sham, frivolity or other objections. S.W. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 13 Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). A four-part test is used to evaluate a motion for intervention of 14 right: 15 (1) the motion must be timely; 16 (2) the applicant must claim a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; 17 (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 18 19 (4) the applicant s interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action. 20 21 Wilderness Soc., 630 F.3d at 1177. 22 2. 23 In assessing timeliness, courts in the Ninth Circuit must consider: (1) the current stage of the Timeliness. 24 proceedings; (2) whether the existing parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for any delay in 25 moving to intervene. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 26 1997). Applicants moved to intervene two days after this action was initiated. There can be no debate 3 1 that the motion is timely. 2 3. 3 To demonstrate a significantly protectable interest, a prospective intervenor must establish 4 that (1) the interest asserted is protectable under some law, and (2) there is a relationship between the 5 legally protected interest and the claims at issue. Wilderness Soc., 630 F.3d at 1181. Here, among other 6 remedies, Plaintiffs seeks to alter the manner by which Federal Defendants are satisfying the demands of 7 the Exchange Contractors. Applicants have filed a proposed Complaint in intervention seeking judgment 8 against Plaintiffs, Federal Defendants, and all other parties, that the Exchange Contractors have a first 9 right and priority to receive from the facilities and rights to water available to [] Reclamation in any year Significant Protectable Interests. 10 ... in order to satisfy the requirements of the Exchange Contract and duties provided in the Purchase 11 Contract. Doc. 24-1. It is not clear whether this Court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate such a 12 claim, given that there appears to be no dispute that Reclamation is obligated to satisfy the Exchange 13 Contractors rights and will do so this water year, calling into question whether an Article III case or 14 controversy would exist.2 Nevertheless, plainly at issue in this case is Reclamation s discretion to draw 15 from various sources of supply to satisfy the Exchange Contractors rights, thereby giving them a 16 legally protected interest in the outcome of the litigation. 17 4. 18 Finally, intervention of right is only appropriate where disposition of this action may, as a 19 practical matter, impair or impede Applicants abilities to protect their interests. This requirement 20 demands only a showing that the applicant would be substantially affected in a practical sense by the 21 determination made in an action. S.W. Ctr., 268 F.3d at 822. As mentioned above, no party is proposing 22 a remedy in this case that would impair or impede Reclamation s ability to deliver water to the 23 Exchange Contractors. Nevertheless, the Exchange Contractors have an interest in ensuring that any 24 judgment entered in this case does not impede Reclamation s discretion to draw from a variety of Impairment of Interests. 25 26 2 The Court does not express a final opinion on this issue at this time. 4 1 sources to satisfy the Applicants demands. 2 5. 3 The remaining issue is whether Applicants interests are adequately protected by other parties. In 4 Existing Parties Ability to Represent Applicants Interests. assessing the adequacy of representation, the Ninth Circuit looks at three factors: 5 (1) whether the existing parties will undoubtedly make all of the applicant s arguments; 6 (2) whether the existing parties are capable of and willing to make the applicant s arguments; 7 and 8 (3) 9 be neglected. whether the applicant offers a necessary element to the proceedings that otherwise would 10 Id. at 823. [T]he requirement of inadequacy of representation is satisfied if the applicant shows that 11 representation of its interests may be inadequate.... [T]he burden of making this showing is minimal. 12 Sagebrush Rebellion Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1983). 13 It is well-settled precedent in this circuit that [w]here an applicant for intervention and an 14 existing party have the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises. 15 League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 131 F.3d at 1305; see also Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 16 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). This presumption is at least arguably triggered here because Applicants and 17 Federal Defendants share a similar objective of upholding Reclamation s decision to release water from 18 Millerton. However, the presumption is rebuttable upon a showing that the applicant and the existing 19 parties do not have sufficiently congruent interests. S.W. Ctr., 268 F.3d at 823. 20 Applicants interests diverge from existing Federal Defendants, who, as operators of the entire 21 CVP, have responsibilities to protect multiple interests. See Georgia v. United States Army Corps of 22 Eng rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1259 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding federal defendant with interest in management of 23 a resource did not have interests identical to an entity with economic interests in the use of that 24 resource). Moreover, the Applicants are, logically, primarily concerned with ensuring an uninterrupted 25 supply, from whatever the source, while Federal Defendants have the somewhat more complex goal of 26 ensuring Reclamation is capable of satisfying all of its contractors rights, including those of Grasslands. 5 1 2 Applicants satisfy all of the requirements for intervention as a matter of right. It is not necessary to address Applicants alternative request for permissive intervention. 3 4 III. CONCLUSION Applicants motion to intervene as a matter of right is GRANTED, conditioned upon strictly 5 limiting their participation solely to issues about which they can provide non-repetitive, unique 6 information and/or arguments. In the future, the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to avoid 7 duplicative briefing. 8 SO ORDERED Dated: May 27, 2014 9 10 /s/ Lawrence J. O Neill United States District Judge 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.
