City of Lompoc v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Cachuma Project Authority, et al.
Published: Nov. 22, 1997 | Result Date: Sep. 2, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: S96759LKKJFM – $0
Judge
Court
USDC Eastern
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The federal Cachuma Project provides water to much of the Central Coast region of California through a series of dams in the Santa Ynez River (SYR) watershed. The City of Lompoc is located near the point where the SYR flows into the Pacific Ocean. The city has always taken its municipal water from an underground aquifer, having no rights to the water of the SYR. In 1996, the City of Lompoc filed suit challenging the renewal of the Master Contract for water delivery between defendants, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) and the Cachuma Project Authority (Project). The project is a joint powers agency representing project contractors for the City and County of Santa Barbara, as well as Goleta, Carpenteria, Montecito and other local water districts. Plaintiff charged that the Master Contract renewal violated several federal and state laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief. In a separate but parallel suit, plaintiff sought $7 million in damages from the Bureau for the cost of groundwater treatment. The defendants made a motion for summary judgment.
Settlement Discussions
Per defendant Cachuma, the plaintiff had earlier sought to settle for cash for $7 million. Defendants countered, offering a physical solution to improve Lompoc's groundwater quality, which was rejected.
Result
On Sept. 2, 1997, Judge Karlton granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The judge held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge either the Master Contract Renewal or the Project's operations generally and that abstention was proper given the pendency of hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board. The court further noted that plaintiff should be collaterally estopped from arguing that the Project's operations were the primary cause of groundwater degradation given its directly contrary position in prior litigation. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Within days of learning of the decision, plaintiff dismissed its parallel $7 million tort action against the Bureau of Reclamation and announced its intent to appeal Judge Karlton's decision. The matter is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Other Information
The decision was rendered approximately one year and five months after the case was filed.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390