 |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
  |
 |
Litigation These lawsuits are worth following. If there are additional lawsuits that you feel worthy of being tracked at this website, please let us know: info@c-win.org. Please note that C-WIN is only formally affiliated with a lawsuit if specifically mentioned in the summary below. SAVING THE DELTA AND ITS FISHERIES Watershed Enforcers v. Department of Water Resources (No. RG06292124) -- Watershed Enforcers, a project of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) alleges that DWR violated the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) by failing to possess a CESA take permit to operate the State's Banks pumping plant. The Banks plant pumps water out of the Delta for delivery to contractors and is known to kill endangered and threatened species. The trial court granted a motion for injunctive relief, ordering DWR to obtain a take permit within 60 days or the pumps at Banks would be turned off. This order is currently stayed pending the outcome of DWR's appeal. In Re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings, (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 154 -- In this lawsuit brought by the rural counties of northern California against the Department of Water Resources, the Third District Court of Appeals threw out the programatic EIR/EIS written to support the CALFED Record of Decision on three grounds: (1) it did not identify the additional water needed for storage and conveyance facilities studied; (2) it did not consider less pumping out of the delta as an alternative; (3) and population growth is not inevitable. This decision has been appealed to the California Supreme Court, where it is still pending. Federal NEPA Case Re CALFED: The California Farm Bureau Federation, which initiated the state court challenge to the CALFED EIR (see above) also filed a parallel challenge in federal court. The parties to this case have requested that the federal litigation remain stayed until the outcome of the California Supreme Court challege to the CALFED EIR is resolved. If and when this case is ever revived in federal court, it will present some very interesting quesitons about the extent to which the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is designed to protect farmland. CSPA & Baykeeper v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board -- Plaintiffs seek to have the States program for controlling pollution caused by runoff from irrigated lands -- the "Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands" program -- set aside. Under that program, agricultural operations using hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic pesticides and fertilizers are discharging contaminated irrigation waters and storm waters into California's streams and rivers with little or no government oversight. Plaintiffs argue that the Regional Board has failed to live up to its responsibilities under the Porter-Cologne water Quality Control Act, the California Environmental Quality Act and CESA. Here is the complaint. NRDC v. Kempthorne (Delta Smelt Biological Opinion Case) -- In this federal lawsuit, the NRDC challenged an Endangered Species Act biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which concluded that the Operations and Criteria Plan (a document describing how the SWP and CVP are collectively managed) would not jeopardize the continued existence of the delta smelt. The trial court held that that biological opinion was invalid because, among other things, it relied on unenforceable mitigation measures, failed to adequately analyze the impact of the projects on the species potential for recovery, and failed to consider the most up-to-date information on population size. Read the full opinion. Salmon Biological Opinion Case - Alongside the Delta Smelt Biological Opinion Case (see above), a coalition of environmental organizations and other interests have also challenged the biological opinion that analyzes how Delta operations will impact various salmonid populations that depend on flow conditions in the Delta and its tributaries for survival. This suit, filed against hte National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency charged with protecting anadromous fish (such as salmon), is pending in federal court in Fresno. Oral arguments on cross motions for summary judgment were heard in early October 2007. No decision has been issued yet. Ag Waiver Lawsuit (California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board) - CSPA and Baykeeper filed a lawsuit against the Central Valley Regional Board for renewing waivers that excuse polluted discharges from 25,000 farms from meeting statewide water quality objectives. The lawsuit alleges that the Regional Board's adoption and administration of the waiver system violates the California Environmental Quality Act, state and federal endangered species laws, and the Porter-Cologne Act. CSPA alleges that coalitions of farmers who were supposed to comply with minimal requirements by 2003 have refused to do so. Agricultural pesticides are a principle cause of the decline of the Delta smelt. Discharges of agricultural waste has been identified as the larges source of pollution to Central Valley rivers and streams. FIGHTING URBAN SPRAWL FUELED BY POOR WATER PLANNING C-WIN and Friends of the Santa Clara River (FSCR) v. Castaic Lake Water Agency I -- Every urban area in California must create an Urban Water Management Plan, which is supposed to force Urban planners to grow only at a pace that can be serviced by clean, reliable water supplies. The UWMP of the Castaic Lake Water Agency claimed two sources of water would be available for the proposed Newhall development next to the Santa Clara River in northern Los Angeles County: an aquifer contaminated with perchlorate, and a proposed 41,000 acre feet water transfer from the Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District in Kern County that is being challenged as illegal in another lawsuit. On September 23, 2004, the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the UWMP was inadequate and that a contaminated aquifer is not a reliable water supply even though the defendants claim they will, some time in the future, restore the aquifer to potable status. C-WIN & Friends of the Santa Clara River v. Castaic Lake Water Agency II- After the first UWMP for the Castaic Lake Water agency was ruled inadequate (see above), the document was revised. C-WIN and Friends challenged the document again, arguing that it still does not disclose reliability problems with imported state water and groundwater. The superior court ruled against C-WIN and Friends, reasoning that the discussion in the UWMP of various reliability issues was sufficient. C-WIN and Friends plan to appeal the superiour court's ruling. C-WIN & FSCR v. Castaic Lake Water Agency, Semitropic Water Storage District, & CDWR -- As part of the Castaic Lake Water District’s Urban Water Management Plan, a transfer of 41,000 acre feet of paper water from Semitropic Water storage District was supposed to provide a water supply for the 22,000 home development by the Newhall Land Co. in Santa Clarita. This proposed transfer is illegal under the settlement terms of a separate lawsuit concerning the Monterey Agreement (Planning and Conservation League v. DWR) because it is “paper water.” Paper water cannot be used to meet the requirements of the massive Newhall development next to the Santa Clarita River in northern Los Angeles County. ENVIRONMENTAL WATER NRDC v. Friant Water Users Authority (28 cities and irrigation districts) - Friant Dam was built in the mid-1940s as part of the federal Central Valley Project. State law that requires that when a dam is built, the fisheries below it must be protected. Yet the operation of Friant Dam has dried up long stretches of the San Joaquin River, two sections for as much as 70 miles, and has destroyed two Chinook salmon runs. After the U.S. District Court in Sacramento indicated its intent to rule in favor of Plaintiffs, all parties entered into a global settlement that provides for the restoration of the San Joaquin and its salmonid runs. OTHER SIGNIFICANT LITIGATION Butte Environmental Council (BEC) v. Glenn Colousa Irrigaiton District (GCID) - The Butte Environmental Council challenged a project that would install numerous deep wells into the Tuscan aquifer, which underlies Butte, Glenn, and Tehama counties, designed to test extraction capacity. GCID declined to perform a full environmental review of the drilling project, asserting that the wells are for research purposes only. BEC has argued that the wells are just the first part of a larger plan to integrate groundwater supplies into the State Water Project by pumping water out of the fairly balanced Tuscan aquifer so that surface flows from elsewhere can be banked there. POWER v. Imperial Irrigation District - On October 2, 2003, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) approved the Water Conservation and Transfer Project which contemplates the conservation by IID of up to 300,000 acre-feet per year of Colorado River water and the transfer of all or a portion of the conserved water to San Diego County Water Authority, Coachella Valley Water District, and/or Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. On Nov. 6, 2003, Protect Our Water and Environmental Rights (POWER) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate against IID, challenging its approval of the project and its certification of the EIR under CEQA. The project would drastically reduce water flow to the Salton Sea, thus hastening and/or causing its demise and increasing the serious air quality and related impacts to the region. In addition, the CEQA analysis does not sufficiently evaluate potential alternatives to the transfer, including water reuse, reclamation, or other conservation-based approaches to obtaining sustainable water source for San Diego County. California Coastkeeper v. Dept. of Fish and Game - This lawsuit seeks to force the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to immediately establish and adopt a minimum stream flows program that fully complies with existing laws mandating the implementation of such a program. Coastkeeper alleges that DFG has never come close to complying with the clear, mandatory duties set forth in the applicable sections of the California Public Resources Code (s. 10000-100005), adopted 25 years ago. Instead, according to the complaint, in fiscal year 2005, DFG completely disbanded their inadequate compliance efforts. |
