AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2024
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00878
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AQUALLIANCE, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00878−JLT-EPG

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING RE MOOTNESS 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES BUREAU OF 15 RECLAMATION, et al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiffs in this case challenge a five-year program (2020-2024) designed to allow sellers 20 located upstream of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (“Delta”) to sell/transfer water to willing 21 buyers south of the Delta (the “Project”). Claims in the case arise under the National 22 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Environmental 23 Quality Act (CEQA), and California’s Public Trust Doctrine. Currently pending before the Court 24 are highly complex cross-motions for summary judgment challenging the September 2019 25 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Long Term Water 26 Transfer Project (LTWT EIS/R) prepared under CEQA and NEPA as well as the related 27 biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (LTWT BiOp). As the Court has 28 previously indicated, it has begun work on the pending motions, but a ruling has been 1 significantly delayed by the ongoing judicial resource shortage, pressing criminal matters, and 2 other time-consuming emergency motions. As the 2024 water year began, given the nature of the 3 water supply situation on the ground and the established fact that transfers under the Project have 4 not occurred in every year, it became apparent that this case might soon be mooted by the passage 5 of time before a ruling could be issued. At the Court’s request, the Parties have provided periodic 6 updates on the challenged Project. The most recent of these, a joint status report filed on June 10, 7 2024, indicates in no uncertain terms that no transfers will occur in this final year of the Project’s 8 scope. (Doc. 68 at 2.) Federal Defendants and San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (San 9 Luis), therefore, argue that the case is now moot. (Id.) 10 In response, Plaintiffs appear to invoke the doctrine that allows for adjudication of an 11 otherwise moot controversy that is “capable of repetition yet [may] evade review.” Native Vill. of 12 Nuiqsut v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 9 F.4th 1201, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021). (See Doc. 68 at 2.) This 13 exception has two requirements: “(1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow 14 full litigation before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the 15 plaintiffs will be subjected to the challenged action again.” Id. Unlike situations where a 16 defendant’s voluntary conduct in response to litigation is the source of mootness and the burden is 17 on the defense to demonstrate that the conduct will not recur, W. Virginia v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 18 597 U.S. 697, 719 (2022), under the capable of repetition but evading review exception “the 19 plaintiffs have the burden of showing that there is a reasonable expectation that they will once 20 again be subjected to the challenged activity.” Nuiqsut, 9 F.4th at 1209 (internal citations and 21 quotations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Dep’t of Fish & Game v. Fed. Subsistence Bd., 62 22 F.4th 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2023). 23 Moreover, in the context of a challenge to an environmental document, Ninth Circuit 24 authority suggests that a plaintiff must demonstrate not only that the same kind of project activity 25 will recur, but also that the challenged reasoning will be relied upon in a subsequent 26 environmental document. See Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434, 446 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ramsey 27 plaintiffs challenged a 1993 fisheries management decision that had been supported by a 28 biological opinion. See id. at 445. When the 1993 decision was rendered moot, the plaintiffs 1 argued the case should nonetheless continue because the 1994 decision relied on that same 2 biological opinion. See id. at 445–46. The Ninth Circuit disagreed because, though the 1994 3 decision relied on the biological opinion for some inputs, the agency was using a different 4 “method of calculating” the environmental impacts. Id.; see also Nuiqsut, 9 F.4th at 5 1210.(“[W]hen an agency ‘rel[ies] on the same biological opinion’ but ‘us[es] a different method 6 of calculating’ the final course of action in future environmental reports, the case is moot.”) 7 (citing Ramsey, 96 F.3d at 446); Fed. Subsistence Bd., 62 F.4th at 1184 (“[W]hen future decisions 8 will be based on different criteria, factors, or methods, we have also found no reasonable 9 expectation of repetition.”). 10 Plaintiffs point out that “at least six state and/or federal agencies, including defendant San 11 Luis are proceeding with environmental reviews for water transfer projects that expressly rely on 12 the challenged EIS/EIR in this case.” (Id.; see also Doc. 62 at 3.) Thus, Plaintiffs contend, it is 13 “abundantly clear that these intrastate water transfers are reasonably expected to recur.” (Doc. 38 14 at 2–3.) Federal Defendants are correct that the cited pages of these documents largely reference 15 the LTWT EIS/R for background purposes, (id. at 2) but that is not exclusively so. For example, 16 an addendum to an EIS covering transfers for the Western Canal Water District and Richvale 17 Irrigation District Transfers from 2023 to 2027, discussed the LTWT EIS/R to support a particular 18 method of identifying flow changes that may “potentially affect fish.” (Doc. 63, Exhibit C, at p. 3-7, 19 and 4-1.)1 However, it is not clear how the methods and reasoning utilized in the LTWT EIS/R or 20 BiOp are being relied upon in this document. San Luis appears to be preparing environmental 21 documents related to a renewed water transfer project set to commence in 2025. (See Doc. 63 at 170.) 22 But, absent any details related to those environmental documents, it is again not clear how the current 23 challenge will relate to issues that may arise in the future San Luis project. 24 For these reasons, the Court believes supplemental briefing on the question of mootness is 25 required. Among other things, Plaintiffs’ burden demands that they demonstrate the “capable of 26 repetition yet evading review” exception applies independently to each issue in their case.2 For 27 1 Other example environmental documents provided by Plaintiffs appear to only cover 2024, (Doc. 63 at Exh. A and 28 B), so seem unlikely to overcome the mootness exception raised here. —e—— I EI III III ISSIR III II INI EOS

1 || example, if certain challenged aspects of the LTWT EIS/R or the LTWT BiOp will not be relied upon 2 | again in the future, then Ramsey suggests that those issues are moot. 3 The Court regrets the length of time that these cases have been pending and the consequences 4 | of this delay for the parties, but nonetheless cannot avoid evaluating its own jurisdiction. Thus, within 5 | 30 days following the issuance of this minute order, Plaintiffs shall submit a supplemental brief no 6 | longer than 15 pages in length addressing the issue of mootness; thereafter, Federal Defendants shall 7 | have 21 days to file a responsive brief of equal or lesser length.* The previously imposed requirement 8 | for the filing of status reports ever 30 days is VACATED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 1, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 States Dep't of the Interior, No. 1:16-CV-00307-DAD-SKO, 2021 WL 5054394, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021) (citing Pac. Nw. Generating Co-op. v. Brown, 822 F. Supp. 1479, 1506 (D. Or. 1993), aff'd, 38 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 26 1994). However, Ramsey suggest that it may be more appropriate to describe the inquiry as one that must be undertaken on an issue-by-issue. See Ramsey, 96 F.3d at 446; see also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 497 27 (1969) (“Where one of the several issues presented becomes moot, the remaining live issues supply the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy.” 28 3 The Court will entertain any reasonable stipulation regarding these deadlines.