Facts

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District filed a complaint against Sally Jewell, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Michael Connor, and David Murrillo. The Hoopa Valley Tribe, The Yurok Tribe, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and the Institute for Fisheries Resources joined as defendant-intervenors.

The lawsuit concerned the Bureau's decision to make certain flow augmentation releases of water, beginning on Aug. 13, 2013, from the Lewinston Dam, in an effort to prevent a fish die off in the Lower Klamath River.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that the approval and implementation of the 2013 flow augmentation releases violated various provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the Reclamation Act. Plaintiff also alleged a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement, or engaging in consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking a restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. Defendants also moved to dismiss on mootness grounds.

Result

On Aug. 13, 2013, the court issued a temporary restraining order, restraining and enjoining the federal defendants from making releases in excess of 450 cubic feet per second. The court later lifted this TRO and denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Ultimately, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on standing grounds with respect to plaintiffs' ESA claim, but denied it in all other respects. As such, the court denied plaintiffs' cross-motion as to the ESA claim, and granted in all other respects. Further, the court determined that plaintiffs' NEPA claim was moot. Moreover, the court granted defendants' motion as to plaintiffs' claims brought under the Administrative Procedures Act. Conversely, it denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the APA claims. Additionally, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the distinct issue of whether Reclamation violated the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and denied plaintiffs' motion as to this issue. Then, it granted plaintiffs' motion with respect to the distinct issue of whether the 1955 Act provided authorization to implement the 2013 flow augmentation releases. Consequently, it denied defendants' cross-motion on this issue. In the end, the question of remedies remained an issue for this court to decide.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 7, 2013.