Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:421
`
`
`TODD KIM
`Assistant Attorney General
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`LUTHER L. HAJEK
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`Natural Resources Section
`999 18th Street, South Terrace, Suite 370
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel.: (303) 844-1376
`Fax: (303) 844-1350
`E-mail: luke.hajek@usdoj.gov
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
` Case No. 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY
`REMAND AND MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT
`
`Hearing Date: March 24, 2021
`Time: 8:30 am
`Courtroom: 9D
`Judge: Honorable George H. Wu
`
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
`DIVERSITY, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. BUREAU OF LAND
`MANAGEMENT, et. al.,
`Defendants,
`
`and
`CADIZ, INC., et al.,
`Defendant-Intervenors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defs.’ Notice of Motion for Voluntary Remand and Memorandum in Support
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:422
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY REMAND
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on March 24, 2022, or as soon thereafter as
`it may be taken under submission or heard, Defendants the U.S. Bureau of Land
`Management (“BLM”) et al. will, and hereby do, move this Court for a voluntary
`remand of the actions challenged in this case. Specifically, Defendants request that
`the Court grant a remand of BLM’s decision to issue a right-of-way to Cadiz Real
`Estate, LLC (“Cadiz”) allowing it to operate a pipeline to transport water between
`Cadiz and Barstow, California. In making that decision, BLM did not adequately
`analyze the potential environmental impacts of granting the right-of-way under the
`National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and did not sufficiently evaluate
`potential impacts to historic properties under the National Historic Preservation
`Act (“NHPA”). Therefore, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
`memorandum in support, Defendants request that the Court remand BLM’s
`decision to the agency and vacate it.
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, Defendants’ counsel has conferred with counsel
`for the parties. Defendant-Intervenors Cadiz et al. oppose this motion. Plaintiffs
`Center for Biological Diversity et al. and Plaintiffs Native American Land
`Conservancy et al., subject to review of the filed brief, do not oppose this motion.
`DATED: December 3, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TODD KIM
`
`
`
`
`
`Assistant Attorney General
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`/s/ Luther L. Hajek_______________
`Luther L. Hajek
`Trial Attorney (CO Bar No. 44303)
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Notice of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:423
`
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`Natural Resources Section
`999 18th Street
`South Terrace, Suite 370
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel ǀ (303) 844-1376
`Fax ǀ (303) 844-1350
`Email: Luke.Hajek@usdoj.gov
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Notice of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:424
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`Factual Background ...................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`Legal Background ........................................................................ 7 
`The Federal Land Policy and Management Act ................ 7 
`A. 
`B.  Mineral Leasing Act........................................................... 7 
`C. 
`National Environmental Policy Act ................................... 8 
`D.  National Historic Preservation Act .................................... 9 
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................... 11 
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 12 
`I. 
`A Remand of BLM’s Right-of-Way Decision Is Appropriate ... 12 
`BLM Did Not Comply With NEPA Prior to the Approval
`A. 
`of Right-of-Way Grants to Cadiz ..................................... 12 
`BLM Did Not Comply With Section 106 of the NHPA
`Prior to the Approval of Right-of-Way Grants to Cadiz . 16 
`BLM Lacked Sufficient Information to Determine
`Whether Cadiz’s Use of the Rights-of-Way Complied
`With FLPMA ................................................................... 20 
`The Court Should Vacate BLM’s Decision Granting Rights-of-
`Way to Cadiz .............................................................................. 21 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 23 
`
`
`
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:425
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Cases 
`Alaska Ctr. for Envt. v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`189 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................... 13, 14
`Allied–Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n,
`988 F.2d 146 (D.C.Cir.1993) ............................................................................... 12
`Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency,
`688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................... 11, 12, 21
`California v. Norton,
`311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 15
`Coast Rivers All. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior,
`No. 1:16-cv-307-LJO-MJS, 2016 WL 8673038 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016) ........ 11
`Crutchfield v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`154 F. Supp. 2d 878 (E.D. Va. 2001) ................................................................... 19
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00226-APG-VCF, 2017 WL 3667700 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2017) .... 15
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
`No. CV 17-8587-GW(ASx), 2019 WL 2635587 (June 20, 2019) ......................... 2
`Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,
`470 U.S. 729 (1985) ............................................................................................. 21
`Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt,
`58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir.1995) ................................................................................. 12
`Jones v. Gordon,
`793 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................ 15
`Klamath–Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.,
`109 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................ 21, 22
`Lute v. Singer Co.,
`678 F.2d 844 (9th Cir.1982) ................................................................................. 11
`Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`177 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................... 9, 10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:426
`
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior,
`275 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2002) ................................................................ 11
`Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency,
`960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020) ....................................................................... 21, 22
`Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck,
`304 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 19
`Nw. Res. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.,
`56 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 19
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency,
`806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 23
`Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,
`490 U.S. 332 (1989) ............................................................................................... 8
`Rusty Coal Blackwater v. Sec. of the Interior,
`No. 3:14-cv-244-LRH-VPC, 2015 WL 506475 (D. Nev. Feb. 5, 2015) ...... 11, 16
`San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell,
`747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 21
`Save Our Heritage v. Federal Aviation Administration,
`269 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2001) .................................................................................. 18
`Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation v. U.S. Army Corps of
`Eng’rs,
`No. 3:11-CV-03026-RAL, 2016 WL 5478428 (D.S.D. Sept. 29, 2016) ............. 18
`SKF USA Inc. v. United States,
`254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 11
`Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nev. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
`496 F. App’x. 712 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................. 10, 11
`Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone of Nev. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior,
`608 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................... 17, 18
`Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`621 F.2d 1084 (10th Cir.1980) ............................................................................. 11
`Statutes 
`30 U.S.C. § 185(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`iii
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:427
`
`
`43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(7) ............................................................................................... 7
`54 U.S.C. § 300320 ..................................................................................... 10, 17, 19
`54 U.S.C. § 304101 .................................................................................................... 9
`54 U.S.C. § 306108 ............................................................................................. 9, 17
`Regulations 
`36 C.F.R. § 800.16(d) .............................................................................................. 10
`36 C.F.R. § 800.16(l)(1) ........................................................................................... 10
`36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a) ................................................................................................. 17
`36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a)(1) ..................................................................................... 16, 18
`36 C.F.R. § 800.4(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 10
`36 C.F.R. § 800.4(d)(2) ............................................................................................ 10
`36 C.F.R. §§ 800.4-800.6 ......................................................................................... 17
`40 C.F.R. § 1501.3 ..................................................................................................... 8
`40 C.F.R. § 1501.4 ................................................................................................... 13
`43 C.F.R. § 2885.12(a) ............................................................................................... 7
`43 C.F.R. § 46.205(c) ............................................................................................... 13
`43 C.F.R. § 46.210 ..................................................................................................... 9
`43 C.F.R. § 46.215(f) ........................................................................................ 13, 15
`43 C.F.R. §§ 2804.25(c) ........................................................................................... 16
`
`Other Authorities 
`51 Fed. Reg. 15,618 (Apr. 25, 1986) ......................................................................... 8
`65 Fed. Reg. 77,69 (Dec. 12, 2000) ......................................................................... 19
`85 Fed. Reg. 43,304 (July 16, 2020) .......................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:428
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendants request that the Court remand the U.S. Bureau of Land
`Management’s (“BLM”) issuance of right-of-way grants to Cadiz Real Estate, LLC
`(“Cadiz”) to allow it to operate a pipeline to transport water between Cadiz and
`Wheeler Ridge, California. The potential impacts of granting such a right-of-way
`were not properly evaluated in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
`Act (“NEPA”) and the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). Due to the
`lack of analysis, the agency does not know the source of the water that will be
`transported through the pipeline and therefore could not have analyzed the
`potential impacts on the environment or historic properties of drawing down the
`water at its source. Cadiz did not provide specific information about its plans, and
`the agency, nevertheless, proceeded to grant a right-of-way without knowing either
`the specifics of Cadiz’s plans or evaluating the potential impacts of Cadiz’s
`operations. The resulting decision violated NEPA and the NHPA. Defendants
`further request that BLM’s decision and the underlying right-of-way grants be
`vacated due to the seriousness of the agency’s legal errors.
`BACKGROUND
`
`Factual Background
`I.
`For more than twenty years, Cadiz has pursued a project to extract water
`
`from an aquifer underlying its land in southeastern California and transport it to
`urban areas in and around Los Angeles. Cadiz’s property is located in the vicinity
`of Mojave National Preserve and surrounded by Mojave Trails National
`Monument. Cadiz2020-02384. In order to transport the water to urban water
`districts, Cadiz must cross federal lands. Two avenues are available: a southern
`route connecting the Cadiz Project to the Colorado River Aqueduct near Rice,
`California, or a northern route extending westward to the California Aqueduct near
`Wheeler Ridge, California. Cadiz2020-02449-50.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:429
`
`
`
`In order to pursue the southern route, Cadiz leased a portion of a railroad
`right-of-way from the Arizona California Railroad, which had been granted under
`the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 (“1875 Act”). See Ctr. for
`Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. CV 17-8587-GW(ASx),
`2019 WL 2635587, at *1 (June 20, 2019). Cadiz asserted that, because the right-
`of-way for the railroad right-of-way was granted under the 1875 Act and its use of
`the line would further a railroad purpose, it did not need to seek permission from
`BLM to use the right-of-way for a water pipeline. Id. at *3. BLM agreed in 2017,
`and determined that Cadiz had shown that its proposed water pipeline would serve
`a railroad purpose. Id. at *6-7. BLM’s determination was challenged, and in June
`2019, this Court held that the determination was arbitrary and capricious and
`remanded the matter to the agency. Id. at *31-32. In February 2020, BLM
`reaffirmed its determination that Cadiz’s water pipeline would serve a railroad
`purpose, but Cadiz has not built a pipeline along that route and that determination
`is not at issue here.1
`Cadiz also pursued a potential northern route for the transport of water,
`which is at issue here. In May 2020, Cadiz approached BLM about the potential
`conversion of an existing right of way grant for a natural gas pipeline to use for
`water transport. Cadiz2020-02444. That pipeline, the rights to which Cadiz
`purchased from the El Paso Natural Gas Company (“EPNG”), runs from Cadiz,
`California to Wheeler Ridge, California. Id.; see also Cadiz2020-02450. Cadiz
`informed BLM that it planned to use the existing pipeline, which previously had
`been used to transport natural gas, to transport water. Cadiz2020-02444.
`According to Cadiz, the pipeline “has the capacity to transport approximately
`
`
`1 It is Defendants’ understanding that a legal dispute with the State of California
`has prevented Cadiz from moving forward along the southern route.
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:430
`
`
`
`30,000 [acre-feet per year (“AFY”)] between Palmdale and Barstow and 25,000
`AFY between Barstow and Cadiz.” Id. Cadiz further explained that the “[u]se of
`the pipeline for water transport would facilitate groundwater storage in adjacent
`basins,” and would diversify the “sources of water for communities that presently
`lack access to reliable water sources, including state-designated disadvantaged
`communities.” Id. Cadiz also submitted maps showing the existing EPNG line
`and the potential route of the water pipeline in relation to existing aqueducts.
`Cadiz20202449-50.2
`In June 2020, BLM sent Cadiz some initial questions about their planned
`project. Cadiz2020-02429. Cadiz responded on July 20, 2020, but provided few
`details about its plans to transport water through the pipeline. Cadiz2020-02417.
`It stated that its proposed plan was “a separate project that is not part of the Cadiz
`Water Project that has been planned to deliver water from Cadiz’s holdings to the
`Colorado River Aqueduct for delivery to communities in Southern California.” Id.
`Instead, it asserted that its plans with respect to the EPNG line involved
`transporting water from Cadiz to Wheeler Ridge, but stated that the “project [was]
`in the early stages.” Id. Further, Cadiz explained that, if it obtained approval from
`BLM to use the pipeline for transporting water, it would seek to enter into
`contracts with water providers and water users for the transport of water. Id.
`Cadiz did not explain where the water would come from.
`
`
`2 In a 2018 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cadiz stated that
`it currently owned a 96-mile abandoned oil and gas line extending from Cadiz to
`Barstow, California, and that it planned to acquire an additional 124-mile segment
`from Barstow to Wheeler Ridge, California, which would allow Cadiz to “transport
`between 18,000 and 30,000 acre-feet of water per year between the Water Project
`area and the Central and Northern California water transportation networks.”
`Cadiz2020-01474.
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:431
`
`
`
`On July 30, 2020, Cadiz submitted an application to BLM for a right-of-
`way. Cadiz2020-02382. Cadiz sought approval of the assignment of a right-of-
`way granted to EPNG for a right-of-way spanning a 216-mile route from Cadiz to
`Wheeler Ridge and amendment of the right-of-way grant to allow Cadiz to use the
`pipeline for water transport. Id. The application stated that Cadiz “owns 45,000
`acres of land and water rights in eastern San Berna[r]dino County, California.” Id.
`The application further stated that the conversion of the oil and gas pipeline to a
`water pipeline would provide an alternative source of water to water providers and
`particularly rural areas and disadvantage communities. Cadiz2020-02383. It also
`provided a map of the “Cadiz Northern Pipeline,” which showed a route extending
`from Cadiz to Wheeler Ridge. Cadiz2020-02384. Attached to the application was
`a “Plan of Development,” which stated, “Water will be transported through the
`pipeline to serve water conveyance needs of various municipal, agricultural, and
`industrial interests along the route of the pipeline.” Cadiz2020-02396. No other
`details about Cadiz’s plans to use the pipeline for water transport were provided.
`On September 23, 2020, Cadiz sent an e-mail to BLM regarding the
`assignment of the EPNG right-of-way. Cadiz2020-02259. In the e-mail, Cadiz
`advised BLM that the closing on the agreement regarding the EPNG pipeline and
`right-of-way was “predicated on BLM’s approval of the assignment of the ROW to
`Cadiz.” Id. In a subsequent e-mail on October 12, 2020, Cadiz offered input on
`potential options for processing its right-of-way application: under one option
`BLM would process the application all at once and amend the existing right-of-
`way, and in the other, BLM would take two separate actions—reassigning the
`existing right-of-way for the natural gas pipeline and granting a new right-of-way
`under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) for a water
`pipeline. Cadiz2020-02184-86. Cadiz emphasized the need to process the
`application quickly. Cadiz2020-02185. After subsequent meetings with Cadiz,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:432
`
`
`
`BLM committed to completing a decision regarding the right-of-way by the end of
`December 2020. Cadiz2020-02112.
`BLM chose to process the application in two steps: the reassignment of the
`existing Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”) right-of-way for oil and gas transport and
`the grant of a new FLPMA right-of-way for water transport. On December 11,
`2020, BLM prepared two categorical exclusions (“CX”), one for each step. See
`Cadiz2020-00583, Cadiz2020-00650. For the MLA right-of-way, BLM relied on a
`CX specified in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s manual, 516 DM 11.9 E.(9),
`which applies to renewals of rights-of-way “where no additional rights are
`conveyed beyond those granted by the original authorizations.” Cadiz2020-00584.
`For the FLPMA right-of-way, BLM relied on the CX in 516 DM 11.9 E.(12),
`which applies to “[g]rants of right-of-way wholly within the boundaries of other
`compatibly developed rights-of-way.” Cadiz2020-00650. For each CX, BLM
`concluded that there were no extraordinary circumstances associated with the
`actions that would require the preparation of an environmental analysis.
`Cadiz2020-00587; Cadiz2020-00654.
`As for NHPA compliance, BLM determined that both right-of-way grants
`fell within Exemption B8 of the California Protocol Agreement (“PA”),3 meaning
`that a separate review of potential adverse effects on historic properties pursuant to
`section 106 of the NHPA was not required. Cadiz2020-01260-61 (MLA right-of-
`way); Cadiz2020-00950-51 (FLPMA right-of-way). On December 10, 2020, the
`
`
`3 The California PA serves as the alternative process by which the BLM in
`California satisfies its responsibilities under section 106 of the NHPA, consistent
`with the National Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, Advisory Council
`on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) and the National Conference of State Historic
`Preservation Officers. Cadiz2020-00950 n.1. The California PA is attached as Ex.
`1.
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:433
`
`
`
`Native American Land Conservancy and the National Parks Conservation
`Association (collectively, “NALC”), both of whom are now Plaintiffs, submitted a
`formal objection to the BLM’s use of Exemption B8 in accordance with section
`8.1(P) of the California PA, which triggered a consultation process with the
`California State Historic Preservation Officer (“SHPO”). Cadiz2020-00344; see
`also California PA at 16-17. NALC asserted that Exemption B8 was inapplicable
`because BLM did not consider potential impacts to historic properties associated
`with Cadiz’s water extraction project as directly associated with the right-of-way
`authorization. Cadiz2020-00345. On December 15, 2020, the California SHPO
`also sent BLM an e-mail in response to NALC’s objections. Cadiz2020-00182.
`On December 21, 2020, BLM responded to the California SHPO’s concerns
`and NALC’s objection, explaining that it was no longer relying on Exemption B8
`and was instead relying on the applicable regulations at 36 C.F.R. pt. 800,
`consistent with Stipulation 5.1(A) of the California PA. Cadiz2020-00195 (letter
`to SHPO); Cadiz2020-00193 (letter to NALC). BLM concluded that the right-of-
`way had “independent utility,” i.e., was not related to any other authorization for
`the use of public or private land and, specifically, was “not linked to the use of the
`groundwater under private lands held by Cadiz.” Id.
`On December 21, 2020, BLM also issued a decision transferring a portion of
`the EPNG MLA right-of-way to Cadiz and simultaneously granting a new,
`coextensive FLPMA right-of-way to Cadiz. Cadiz2020-00001-37. The rights-of-
`way cover approximately 58 and 53 miles of discontinuous federal land,
`respectively, between Cadiz and Wheeler Ridge, California. Cadiz2020-00021
`(MLA grant); Cadiz2020-00005 (FLPMA grant); see also Cadiz2020-02449
`(indicating the approximate location of the rights-of-way); Cadiz2020-01140-64
`(plats of the land crossed by the rights-of-way).
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:434
`
`
`
`II. Legal Background
`A.
`The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
`Pursuant to FLPMA, BLM is charged with managing federal public lands for
`a variety of uses while protecting environmental, ecological, and recreational
`values. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(7). Under Title V of FLPMA, BLM may grant
`rights-of-way across public land for various uses, including pipelines for the
`transportation of water. Id. § 1761(a)(1). An entity seeking a right-of-way must
`submit an application disclosing the intended use of the right-of-way, plans, and
`any other information deemed necessary by the Secretary. Id. § 1761(b)(1). If
`approved, a right-of-way grant should include terms and conditions ensuring that
`that applicant minimizes potential environmental impacts and complies with
`relevant federal and state air and water quality standards, among other things. Id. §
`1765.
`B. Mineral Leasing Act
`Under the Mineral Leasing Act, BLM may grant rights-of-way across federal
`lands for pipelines to transport oil or gas. 30 U.S.C. § 185(a); 43 C.F.R. pt. 2880.
`BLM may grant the right-of-way so long as the applicant possesses the requisite
`qualifications and BLM determines that the right-of-way is consistent with the
`purposes of the affected federal land. 30 U.S.C. §§ 185(a), (b)(1). A grant
`conveys to the grantee only those rights expressly contained in the grant and
`includes, among other things, the right to “[u]se the described lands to construct,
`operate, maintain, and terminate facilities within the right-of-way or TCP
`[temporary use permit] area for authorized purposes under the terms and conditions
`of the grant or TUP,” and “[a]ssign the grant or TUP to another, provided that [the
`grantee] obtain the BLM’s prior written approval, unless [the grantee’s] grant or
`TUP states that such approval is unnecessary.” 43 C.F.R. § 2885.12(a), (e). A
`proposed assignee of a grant “must file an application and satisfy the same
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:435
`
`
`
`procedures and standards as for a new grant or TUP.” Id. § 2887.11(b). Until
`approved in writing, BLM will not recognize an assignment. Id. § 2887.11(e).
`C. National Environmental Policy Act
`NEPA serves the dual purpose of informing agency decision-makers of the
`
`significant environmental effects of proposed major federal actions and ensuring
`that relevant information is made available to the public so that they “may also
`play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that
`decision.” See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349
`(1989). To meet the procedural goals of the statute, NEPA requires that an agency
`prepare a comprehensive EIS for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the
`quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
`An EIS, however, is not required in every instance. In accordance with the
`Council on Environmental Quality’s (“CEQ”) regulations implementing NEPA, an
`agency should first determine the appropriate level of environmental review. See
`40 C.F.R. § 1501.3.4 If an action typically would not have significant
`environmental effects, then it may be categorically excluded from the requirement
`to prepare an EIS. Id. § 1501.3(a)(1). Each agency shall promulgate its own
`regulations regarding the types of actions subject to categorical exclusions (“CX”).
`Id. § 1501.4(a). If a proposed action falls within a CX identified by the agency’s
`regulations, then the agency must evaluate whether extraordinary circumstances
`
`
`4 CEQ promulgated regulations implementing NEPA in 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 55,978
`(Nov. 29, 1978), and a minor substantive amendment to those regulations in 1986,
`51 Fed. Reg. 15,618 (Apr. 25, 1986). In 2020, CEQ published a final rule
`substantially revising the 1978 regulations. 85 Fed. Reg. 43,304 (July 16, 2020).
`The NEPA review challenged in this case was conducted pursuant to the 2020
`regulations, and therefore the citations to CEQ’s regulations in this brief refer to
`those regulations.
`
`Defs.’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Remand
`
`
`8
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02507-GW-AS Document 42 Filed 12/03/21 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:436
`
`
`
`are present. Id. § 1501.4(b)(1). If extraordinary circumstances are present, then
`the agency may not rely on a CX and instead must prepare an environmental
`assessment (“EA”) or an EIS. Id. § 1501.4(b)(2).
`The Department of the Interior’s NEPA regulations designate categories of
`actions subject to categorical exclusions. 43 C.F.R. § 46.210. Interior’s
`regulations provide for a review of extraordinary circumstances. Id. § 46.215.
`Categorical exclusions applicable to BLM are set forth in Interior’s Departmental
`Manual (“DM”) at 516 DM 11.9.5
`D. National Historic Preservation Act
`
`Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential
`effects of federal “undertakings” on historic properties. 54 U.S.C. § 306108.
`Section 106 requires BLM to “take into account the effect of the undertaking on
`any historic property.” Id. Section 106 of the NHPA “is a stop, look, and listen
`provision that requires each federal agency to consider the effects of its programs.”
`Muckleshoot India