Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`John Buse (SBN 163156)
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
`1212 Broadway, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: 510-844-7100
`Fax: 510-844-7150
`Email: jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity
`
`E. Robert Wright (SBN 51861)
`LAW OFFICE OF E. ROBERT WRIGHT
`909 12th Street, Suite 202
`Sacramento, California 95814
`Tel: (916) 557-1104
`Fax: (916) 557-9669
`Email: bwrightatty@gmail.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs Restore the Delta and
`Planning and Conservation League
`
`Adam Keats (SBN 191157)
`LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC
`303 Sacramento Street, 2nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 430-9403
`Email: adam@keatslaw.org
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs Restore the Delta and
`Planning and Conservation League
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;
`RESTORE THE DELTA; and PLANNING
`AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE,
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
`RECLAMATION; DAVID BERNHARDT, in
`his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior;
`and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`THE INTERIOR,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, RESTORE THE DELTA,
`
`and PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby sue
`
`Defendants UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DAVID BERNHARDT, in his
`
`official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
`
`INTERIOR (collectively, “Reclamation”) for violations of the National Environmental Policy
`
`Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. section 4321 et seq.
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs seek from this Court an order and judgment setting aside and rescinding
`
`Reclamation’s conversion of 14 of its Central Valley Project (“CVP”) renewal contracts into
`
`permanent repayment contracts with water contractors, and ordering Reclamation to comply with
`
`NEPA. Plaintiffs also seek an order and judgment restraining Reclamation from converting, or
`
`converting by amending, any additional contracts including 26 contracts that Reclamation is in
`
`the process of converting into permanent repayment contracts, and ordering Reclamation to
`
`comply with NEPA. Pursuant to the 14 contracts that Reclamation has already converted,
`Reclamation would be obligated to deliver about 1,799,148 acre-feet1 of water through the CVP
`to those contractors each year. Pursuant to the 26 contracts that Reclamation is in the process of
`
`converting, Reclamation would be obligated to deliver about 480,679 acre-feet of water to those
`
`contractors each year. The total obligation including contracts already converted, and contracts
`
`Reclamation is the process of converting would be about 2,279,879 acre-feet of water per year.
`3.
`
`Deliveries of CVP water are accomplished by diversions from rivers and the Delta
`
`and therefore have many significant adverse environmental impacts on the watershed, including
`
`the rivers and the San Francisco-San Joaquin Bay-Delta estuary. Adverse impacts include
`
`reducing freshwater flows and worsening already degraded Delta water quality; further
`
`endangering and destroying endangered and threatened fish species and critical habitat; reducing
`
`freshwater flows causing and worsening harmful algal blooms in the Delta; adverse impacts on
`
`public health and safety in the Delta region; and adverse impacts on agriculture in the Delta.
`
`
`1 An acre-foot is the quantity of water that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot, or about
`325,851.4 gallons.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`Moreover, Reclamation is in the process of converting virtually all of its CVP contracts, about 35
`
`more of them, into permanent contracts like the 40 contracts already converted or in the process
`
`of being converted. Pursuant to NEPA, “cumulative impact” “is the impact on the environment
`
`which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
`
`reasonably foreseeable future actions … .” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. The conversion of all of these
`
`contracts would have many significant adverse cumulative impacts on the environment as well as
`
`direct significant adverse environmental impacts. Reclamation has discretion in determining and
`
`negotiating the terms and conditions of the contract conversions, and therefore must comply with
`
`NEPA, including preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and/or an
`
`Environmental Assessment (“EA”) before converting the contracts.
`4.
`
`However, Reclamation has refused to prepare an EIS, EA, or comply with NEPA
`
`in any way whatsoever, contending that it has no discretion in determining and negotiating the
`
`terms and conditions of the contract conversions. Reclamation’s conclusion is an erroneous
`
`interpretation of law and of the plain language of the statute Reclamation relies upon.
`5.
`
`Reclamation, therefore, has failed to proceed in the manner required by NEPA
`
`and has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed required agency action pursuant to the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. sections 706. Reclamation’s approvals of the
`
`contract conversions are arbitrary and capricious, and without observance of the procedure
`
`required by law. Id. Reclamation has also failed to proceed in the manner required by the
`
`Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq. Plaintiffs may amend, or if
`
`required seek leave to amend or supplement, this complaint to allege ESA claims against
`
`Reclamation and additional federal parties following completion of 60 day notice under the ESA.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 (federal
`
`question), 1346 (United States as defendant), 1361 (mandamus against an officer of the United
`
`States), 2201 (declaratory judgment), and 2202 (injunctive relief), and under the APA, 5 U.S.C.
`
`sections 701-706 (review of final agency action).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1391(b)(2)
`
`and 1391(e)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred,
`
`and a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, in this judicial
`
`district. Intradistrict assignment of this matter to the Sacramento or Fresno Divisions of the Court
`
`would be appropriate as a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred
`
`in those divisions.
`8.
`
`There exists now between the parties hereto an actual, justiciable controversy in
`
`which Plaintiffs are entitled to have a declaration of their rights and of Reclamation’s
`
`obligations, and further injunctive relief because of the facts and circumstances hereinafter set
`
`forth.
`
`9.
`
`This Complaint is timely filed within the applicable six-year statute of limitations
`
`set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 2401(a).
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims because they suffer tangible harm
`
`from Reclamation’s violations of law as alleged herein. Plaintiffs’ interests in improving water
`
`quality in the Central Valley and preserving fish and wildlife in the Central Valley and Trinity
`
`River watersheds and the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, have been and will continue to be
`
`harmed by the activities permitted by the contracts. The diversion, pumping, delivery, and use of
`
`vast quantities of water from the Bay-Delta pursuant to the contracts directly harms fish through
`
`entrainment at the pumping plants and reduce freshwater flows in the Delta, and also alters the
`
`hydrologic flow patterns in the Delta, adversely affects the Delta’s salinity barrier, causes water
`
`contamination in the San Joaquin River and other northern and Central Valley water bodies,
`
`produces toxic drainage that contaminates wetlands, and pollutes water and groundwater basins
`
`underlying much of the Central Valley, among other adverse impacts. A judgment from this
`
`Court requiring Reclamation to conduct a thorough environmental review of the impacts of the
`
`contracts would redress Plaintiffs’ harms, at least in part, because Reclamation would be
`
`required to consider less harmful alternative terms and conditions in the contracts and also to a
`
`devise mitigation measures to address harms caused by the contracts.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs have suffered and are suffering procedural and informational injuries
`
`due to Reclamation’s failure to fulfill its NEPA duties. Plaintiffs seeking to enforce a procedural
`
`requirement that has been disregarded and could impair a separate concrete interest of theirs, can
`
`establish standing without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy.
`
`They need only establish the reasonable probability of the challenged action’s threat to their
`
`concrete interests.
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs’ interests in the preservation of fish and wildlife in the Bay-Delta,
`
`Central Valley, Trinity River watershed, and San Francisco Bay, as well as their interests in
`
`improving water quality in those areas, are concrete interests.
`13.
`
`All applicable administrative remedies have been adequately exhausted by
`
`Plaintiffs. Within the period for public comment established by Reclamation, Plaintiffs submitted
`
`comment letters dated January 7, February 15, and April 22, 2020, to Reclamation, asserting that
`
`Reclamation must comply with NEPA before converting the contracts. Plaintiff Restore the
`
`Delta also submitted separate comment letters dated January 6 and 7, 2020, and Plaintiffs
`
`Planning and Conservation League and Restore the Delta submitted a comment letter dated
`
`January 6, 2020. Reclamation failed to provide any NEPA notices, prepared no NEPA
`
`documents, and provided no NEPA public comment period.
`
`PARTIES
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (the “Center”) is a non-
`
`profit, public interest organization with over 74,000 active members. The Center has offices in
`
`Oakland, Los Angeles, and Joshua Tree, California, as well as in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico,
`
`Oregon, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. The Center and its members are dedicated to
`
`protecting diverse native species and habitats through science, policy, education, and
`
`environmental law. The Center’s members reside and own property throughout California as
`
`well as those areas to be affected and served by the contracts, and use the waters and lands
`
`affected by the contracts for wildlife observation, recreation, scientific research, environmental
`
`education, and aesthetic enjoyment. One of the Center’s primary missions is to protect and
`
`restore habitat and populations of imperiled species throughout Western North America. The
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`group’s members and staff include individuals who visit the streams, rivers, riparian areas and
`
`Bay-Delta and have biological, health, educational, scientific research, spiritual, and aesthetic
`
`interest in the ecosystems and the species and habitats affected by Central Valley Project
`
`including the deliveries of waters to Reclamation’s contractors. The Center’s members and staff
`
`regularly use and intend to continue to use these areas for observation, research, aesthetic
`
`enjoyment, and other recreational, scientific, and educational activities. The Center’s members
`
`and staff have researched, studied, observed, and sought protection for many imperiled species,
`
`including federally listed threatened and endangered species that depend on the rivers, streams,
`
`riparian habitat, and Bay-Delta in California. The Center’s members and staff have and continue
`
`to derive scientific, recreational, educational, conservation, and aesthetic benefits from the
`
`continued existence of imperiled species in the wild and the preservation of the ecosystems upon
`
`which they depend. Central Valley Project diversions are a detriment to achieving the group’s
`
`goal of protection and restoration, and its members and staff are injured by Reclamation entering
`
`into the permanent contracts in the absence of compliance with NEPA. These injuries would be
`
`redressed by the relief sought.
`15.
`
`Plaintiff RESTORE THE DELTA (“RTD”) is a non-profit public benefit
`
`organization based in Stockton, California. RTD is a coalition of Delta residents, business
`
`leaders, civic organizations, community groups, faith-based communities, union locals, farmers,
`
`fishermen, and environmentalists seeking to strengthen the health of the Bay-Delta estuary and to
`
`protect the environmental interests in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including but not
`
`limited to public health, fishing, farming, and recreation. With over 60,000 members statewide,
`
`RTD advocates on behalf of local Delta stakeholders to ensure that they have a direct impact on
`
`water management decisions affecting the water quality and well-being of their communities,
`
`and water sustainability policies for all Californians. RTD works through public education and
`
`outreach so that all Californians recognize the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as part of
`
`California’s natural heritage, deserving of restoration, seeking a Delta whose waters are fishable,
`
`swimmable, drinkable, and farmable, supporting the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta
`
`Estuary. Members of RTD reside in and along the Bay-Delta and its watershed and use the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`waters of the Central Valley and Bay-Delta for drinking, farming, and for aesthetic, recreational,
`
`and educational enjoyment. As just one example of environmental harms inflicted on RTD
`
`members by diversions for the Central Valley Project, diversions reduce freshwater flows
`
`through the Delta causing and worsening harmful algal blooms (HABs) which threaten the
`
`public health of those drinking, fishing in, or swimming in, Delta waters, or inhaling the air near
`
`Delta waters. These injuries would be redressed by the relief sought.
`16.
`
`Plaintiff PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE (“PCL”) is a nonprofit
`
`advocacy organization empowered to protect and restore California’s natural environment and to
`
`promote and defend the public health and safety of the people of California, through legislative,
`
`administrative, and judicial action. Founded in 1965, PCL was the first organization devoted to
`
`bettering Californians’ quality of life through environmental legislation. One of the
`
`organization’s earliest accomplishments was the enactment in 1970 of the California
`
`Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which PCL helped draft and has continually supported
`
`over the years. PCL has been a party in successful legal actions to compel compliance with
`
`NEPA and CEQA. PCL members reside and own property throughout California as well as those
`
`areas to be served by CVP contracts, and use the waters and lands affected by the CVP contracts.
`
`PCL’s interests have been injured as a result of Reclamation’s permanent locking-in of CVP
`
`contracts, and these injuries would be redressed by the relief sought.
`17.
`
`Defendant UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION is the federal
`
`agency within the United States Department of the Interior charged with managing the CVP and
`
`is responsible for complying with NEPA in connection with its CVP management actions.
`
`Reclamation approved and entered into the contracts challenged in this litigation without
`
`adequate or any environmental review.
`18.
`
`Defendant DAVID BERNHARDT is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of
`
`the Department of the Interior (“Secretary”). He is responsible for the operation of the CVP,
`
`subject to the mandates of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and WIIN Act, and
`
`oversees the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR is a cabinet-
`
`level federal agency, and the parent agency of the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
`20.
`
`NEPA is “our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1500.1(a). Congress directed “that, to the fullest extent possible … the policies, regulations,
`
`and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the
`
`policies set forth in [NEPA] … .” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(1).
`21.
`
`NEPA’s goals are to (1) “prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and
`
`biosphere,” (2) “stimulate the health and welfare of” all people, and (3) “encourage productive
`
`and enjoyable harmony” between humankind and the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4321. NEPA
`
`recognizes that “each person should enjoy a healthful environment” and ensures that the federal
`
`government uses all practicable means to “fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
`
`of the environment for succeeding generations” and “assure for all Americans safe, healthful,
`
`productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” Id. § 4331(b)-(c).
`22.
`
`To fulfill these purposes, NEPA requires that: (1) agencies take a “hard look” at
`
`the environmental impacts of their actions before the actions occur, thereby ensuring “that the
`
`agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed
`
`information concerning significant environmental impacts,” and (2) “the relevant information
`
`will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the
`
`decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.” Robertson v. Methow Valley
`
`Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). NEPA processes must be integrated with other
`
`processes “at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect
`
`environmental values … .” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.2.
`23.
`
`NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for “major Federal actions
`
`significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
`24.
`
`“Major Federal actions” subject to NEPA include both new and continuing
`
`activities. 40 C.F.R. Regulations § 1508.18(a).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`25.
`
`To determine whether the nature and extent of a proposed action’s environmental
`
`effects requires preparing an EIS, federal agencies may first prepare an EA. 40 C.F.R. §
`
`1501.4(b)-(c). If, on the basis of the EA, the agency finds that the proposed action will produce
`
`“no significant impact” on the environment, then an EIS need not be prepared. Id. § 1501.4(e).
`26.
`
`An agency’s NEPA analysis must assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative
`
`impacts of the action. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8. Cumulative impacts are those that “result from the
`
`incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
`
`future actions.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7. An agency must prepare an EIS if it is reasonable to
`
`anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Grand Canyon Trust v. Fed.
`
`Aviation Admin., 290 F.3d 339, 346 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
`27.
`
`As part of its NEPA review, an agency is also required to prepare a detailed
`
`statement regarding the alternatives to a proposed action. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii), (E).
`
`This alternatives analysis is the “heart” of NEPA review. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14; see also id. §
`
`1508.9(b). An agency must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
`
`alternatives,” including a “no-action” alternative. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.
`28.
`
`An agency may prepare a programmatic EIS covering a program. 40 C.F.R. §
`
`1502.20. Subsequent EISs and EAs covering specific actions within the broader program may
`
`“tier” off the programmatic EIS, relying on it to cover the program-level analysis while focusing
`
`on the “issues specific to the subsequent action.” Id.
`
`II.
`
`THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
`29.
`
`The APA provides a right to judicial review for any “person suffering legal wrong
`
`because of agency action.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Final agency actions “for which there is no other
`
`adequate remedy in a court” are reviewable under the APA. Id. § 704.
`30.
`
`Under the APA, a reviewing court shall compel agency action unlawfully
`
`withheld or unreasonably delayed and hold unlawful. Id. § 706(1). In addition, a reviewing court
`
`shall set aside agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law, or without observance of the procedure required by law.
`
`Id. §§ 706(2)(A), 706(2)(D).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`III. THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT
`31.
`
`Congress enacted the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (“CVP
`
`Improvement Act”), Title 34, Public Law 102-575, in 1992 to:
`(a) protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central
`Valley and Trinity River basins of California;
`(b) address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitats;
`(c) improve the operational flexibility of the Central Valley Project;
`(d) increase water-related benefits provided by the Central Valley Project to the State of
`California through expanded use of voluntary water transfers and improved water
`conservation;
`(e) contribute to the State of California's interim and long-term efforts to protect the San
`Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and
`(f) achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley
`Project water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and
`industrial and power contractors.
`
`CVP Improvement Act § 3402.
`32.
`
`The CVP Improvement Act directed the Secretary to operate the CVP “to meet all
`
`obligations under State and Federal law, including but not limited to the [ESA], and all decisions
`
`of the California State Water Resources Control Board establishing conditions on applicable
`
`licenses and permits for the project.” CVP Improvement Act § 3406(a).
`33.
`
`The CVP Improvement Act further directed the Secretary to develop and
`
`implement a program to ensure that natural production of anadromous fish in Central Valley
`
`rivers and streams is doubled by 2002 compared to 1967-1991 levels. CVP Improvement Act §
`
`3406(b)(1).
`34.
`
`To address impacts of the CVP on fish, wildlife, and associated habitat, the CVP
`
`Improvement Act among other things requires Reclamation to conduct environmental review
`
`before any long-term water service contract can be renewed. CVP Improvement Act §
`
`3404(c)(1). Such environmental review must include, but is not limited to, the Secretary’s
`
`preparation of a programmatic EIS analyzing the effects of implementing the CVP Improvement
`
`Act, “including all fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration actions and the potential renewal of all
`
`existing Central Valley Project water contracts.” CVP Improvement Act § 3409.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`IV.
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE NATION ACT
`35.
`
`In 2016, Congress enacted the Water Infrastructure Improvements of the Nation
`
`Act (“WIIN Act”), Public Law 114-322.
`36.
`
`The WIIN Act provides that Reclamation shall convert existing CVP water
`
`service contracts to permanent repayment contracts upon the request of the contractor, under
`
`mutually agreeable terms and conditions. WIIN Act, § 4011(a). The WIIN Act expressly
`
`provides that it shall not be interpreted or implemented in a manner that (1) preempts or modifies
`
`any obligation of the United States under state law; (2) affects or modifies any obligation under
`
`the CVP Improvement Act, subject to a limited exception for the Stanislaus River predator
`
`management program; (3) overrides, modifies, or amends applicability of the ESA; (4) “would
`
`cause additional adverse effects on listed fish species beyond the range of effects anticipated to
`
`occur to the listed fish species for the duration of the applicable biological opinion, using the best
`
`scientific and commercial data available”; or (5) overrides, modifies, or amends any obligation
`
`of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. WIIN Act, § 4012(a).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`37.
`
`The CVP is the largest surface water storage and delivery system in California. It
`
`includes 20 reservoirs with a water storage capacity of nearly 12 million acre-feet, power plants
`
`and pump generating plants with a combined generation capacity of about 4.5 million megawatt
`
`hours annually, two pumping plants that extract water from the Delta and export it to the Central
`
`Valley, and about 500 miles of canals and aqueducts. The CVP provides nearly 6 million acre-
`
`feet of water annually, primarily to agricultural contractors in the Central Valley who account for
`
`about 5 million acre-feet.
`38.
`
`The CVP has numerous adverse environmental effects on the ecosystems of the
`
`San Francisco-San Joaquin Bay-Delta estuary, Central Valley, and Trinity River watershed. CVP
`
`operations divert or pump water from the Delta, reducing freshwater flows through the Delta.
`
`CVP dams and diversions impede fish passage and reduce instream flows. The CVP harms
`
`endangered and threatened fish and adversely modifies or destroys their habitats, including areas
`
`designated as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. Reduced freshwater flows
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`worsen already degraded Delta water quality and contribute to harmful algal blooms in the Delta.
`
`Impaired water quality and reduced water quantity adversely affect public health and safety in
`
`the Delta region and farming in the Delta.
`39.
`
`In written comments to Reclamation on the Draft EIS for re-initiation of ESA
`
`consultation on the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and State Water Project
`
`(“SWP”), the State Water Resources Control Board explained that “fish and wildlife species are
`
`already in poor condition, some of which are on the verge of functional extinction or extirpation”
`
`and that the body of scientific evidence shows “that increased freshwater flows through the Delta
`
`and aquatic habitat restoration are needed to protect Bay-Delta ecosystem processes and native
`
`and migratory fish.” September 25, 2019 SWRCB letter at p. 3.
`40.
`
`On February 28, 2020, Reclamation approved the conversion of 14 CVP contracts
`
`into permanent water service contracts. The 14 converted contracts are shown on Table A:
`
`
`Table A
`
`Contract Conversions Approved on February 28, 2020
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Contractor
`
`Contract No.
`
`Acre-Feet Per Year
`
`Westlands Water District
`
`Westlands Water District Distribution
`District No. 1 (Broadview
`Assignment)
`Westlands Water District
`Distribution District No. 1 (Centinella
`Assignment)
`Westlands Water District
`Distribution District No. 2 (Mercy
`Springs Partial Assignment)
`Santa Clara Valley Water District (and
`Westlands Water Dist. No. 1 Mercy
`Springs 2-Way Partial Assignment)
`Westlands Water District
`Distribution District No. 1 (Widren
`Assignment)
`East Bay Municipal Utility District
`
`City of Folsom
`
`14-06-200-495A-IRI-P
`
`14-06-200-8092-XXX
`
`1,150,000
`
`27,000
`
`7-07-20-WO55-XXX
`
`14-06-200-3365A-XXX-C
`
`14-06-200-3365A-XXX-B
`
`14-06-200-8018-XXX
`
`14-06-200-5183A-LTR1-P
`
`6-07-20-W1372B-P
`12
`
`2,500
`
`4,198
`
`6,260
`
`2,990
`
`433,000
`
`7,000
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`City of Roseville
`
`4-06-200-3474A-IRI-P
`
`Placer County Water Agency
`
`14-06-200-5082A-IRI-P
`
`Sacramento County Water Agency
`
`14-06-200-5198B-IR1-P
`
`Sacramento County Water Agency
`
`6-07-20-W1372-P
`
`Sacramento Municipal Utility District
`
`14-06-200-5198A-IR1-P
`
`San Juan Water District
`
`6-07-20-W1373-LTR1-P
`
`32,000
`
`35,000
`
`30,000
`
`15,000
`
`30,000
`
`24,200
`
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Reclamation is in the process of converting an additional 26 CVP contracts. These
`
`contracts are shown on Table B.
`
`Table B
`
`
`Contracts in Process of Conversion
`
`
`Contractor
`
`Contract No.
`
`Acre-Feet Per Year
`
`4-M Water District
`
`Colusa County Water District
`
`Colusa County Water District
`
`14-06-200-5272A-P
`
`1-07-20-W0220-P
`
`14-06-200-304-A-P
`
`5,700
`
`5,964
`
`62,200
`
`23,000
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Corning Water District
`
`Dunnigan Water District
`
`Glenn Valley Water District
`
`Glide Water District
`
`Kanawha Water District
`
`Proberta Water District
`
`Davis Water District
`
`Cortina Water District
`
`La Grande Water District
`
`La Grande Water District
`
`Hothouse Water District
`
`City of West Sacramento
`
`14-06-200-6575-P
`
`14-06-200-399-A-P
`
`0-07-20-W0219-P
`
`7-07-20-W0040-P
`
`14-06-200-466-A-P
`
`14-06-200-7311-P
`
`14-06-200-6001A-P
`
`0-07-20-W0206-P
`
`7-07-20-W0022-P
`
`0-07-20-W0190-P
`
`1-07-20-W0224-P
`
`0-07-20-W0187-P
`
`Orland-Artois Water District
`
`14-06-200-8382A-P
`
`13
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`19,000
`
`1,730
`
`10,500
`
`45,000
`
`3,500
`
`4,000
`
`1,700
`
`5,000
`
`2,200
`
`2,450
`
`23,600
`
`53,000
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00706-AWI-BAM Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`City of Shasta Lake
`
`Shasta County Water Agency
`
`Mountain Gate Community Services
`District
`City of Redding
`
`Bella Vista Water District
`
`Shasta Community Services Dist.
`
`Stony Creek Water District
`
`Stockton East Water District
`
`Central San Joaquin Water
`Conservation District
`
`4-07-20-W1134-P
`
`14-06-200-3367A-P
`
`14-06-200-6998-P
`
`14-06-200-5272A-P
`
`14-06-200-851A-P
`
`14-06-200-862A-P
`
`2-07-20-W0261-P
`
`4-07-20-W0329-P
`
`4-07-20-W0330-P
`
`4,400
`
`1,022
`
`1,350
`
`6,140
`
`24,578
`
`1,000
`
`3,345
`
`75,000
`
`80,000
`
`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`In 1999, Reclamation issued the programmatic EIS required under the CVP
`
`Improvement Act. The programmatic EIS did not evaluate the environmental consequences of
`
`converting Reclamation’s existing CVP contracts to permanent water service contracts, but
`
`provided that future NEPA review would occur at the level of specific actions, including new
`
`contracts and contract renewals consistent with NEPA’s tiering provisions.
`43.
`
`In 2000, following consultation with Reclamation pursuant to section 7 of the
`
`ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1536), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service released a biological
`
`opinion for the implementation of the CVP Improvement Act and the continued operation and