Case 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`JASON R. FLANDERS (SBN 238007)
`Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com
`AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP
`490 43rd Street, Suite 108
`Oakland, CA 94609
`Phone: 916-202-3018
`
`MICHAEL B. JACKSON (SBN 53808)
`Email: mjatty@sbcglobal.net
`P.O. Box 207
`75 Court Street
`Quincy, CA 95971
`Phone: 530-283-1007
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs AquAlliance,
`California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and
`California Water Impact Network
`
`Patrick M. Soluri (SBN 210036)
`Osha R. Meserve (SBN 204240)
`SOLURI MESERVE, A LAW CORPORATION
`510 8th Street
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`Phone: (916) 455-7300
`Email: patrick@semlawyers.com; osha@semlawyers.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs
`Central Delta Water Agency, South Delta Water Agency
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`AQUALLIANCE; CALIFORNIA
`SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE;
`CALIFORNIA WATER IMPACT
`NETWORK; CENTRAL DELTA WATER
`AGENCY; SOUTH DELTA WATER
`AGENCY,
`
`
`Petitioners and Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
`RECLAMATION; SAN LUIS & DELTA-
`MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY; U.S.
`DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DAVID
`BERNHARDT, in his official capacity; and
`DOES 1 – 100,
`
`Respondents and Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PETITION FOR WRIT
`OF MANDATE
`
`(National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
`§ 4321 et seq.; Administrative Procedure Act, 5
`U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.; California Environmental
`Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Resources Code §§
`21167, 21168, 21168.5; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§
`1060, 1085, 1088.5, 1094.5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`Petitioners and Plaintiffs AquAlliance, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance,
`California Water Impact Network, Central Delta Water Agency and South Delta Water Agency
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Petitioners”) hereby allege as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This is a civil suit brought pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
`1.
`(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§
`701 et seq., and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code §§
`21000 et seq..
`This action is brought by several California water resource management and
`2.
`conservation organizations to challenge defendants’ environmental review and approval of a
`2019-2024 5water transfer program to move water from sellers located upstream of the
`Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (“Delta”) to willing buyers south of the Delta (the “Project”).
`These water transfers would drain both surface and groundwater resources from the Sacramento
`River and San Joaquin River watersheds, imposing significant and irreversible threats to the
`people and sensitive species that rely on these water resources and associated aquatic and riparian
`habitats.
`The Project will likely have devastating impacts to the Delta. The Delta faces
`3.
`interrelated problems of inadequate water supplies, instream flow deficits, water quality
`impairments, and degraded aquatic habitats. This Project would worsen those existing problems
`by further reducing freshwater flows into the Delta.
`The Project would also have detrimental effects on groundwater by relying in part
`4.
`on “groundwater substitution” for these transfers with an inaccurate characterization of existing
`conditions, and wholly ineffective mitigation measures. These adverse groundwater effects will, in
`turn, adversely affect connected surface water and habitats.
`This action arises following the District Court’s judgment in 2018 vacating and
`5.
`setting aside a similar but distinct 10-year water transfer program and associated environmental
`documents originally approved in 2015. Following the District Court’s vacatur, USBR and
`SLDMWA assessed the Project in a Revised Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`Impact Report (“EIS/EIR”) prepared for both NEPA and CEQA purposes. However, the EIS/EIR
`only attempts to minimally rectify past adjudicated mistakes, rather than informing the public of
`the Project’s real impacts. USBR and SLDMWA have failed to provide an accurate description of
`the Project, made nakedly unenforceable promises about operation of the Project, failed to account
`for a plethora of new information and changed circumstances that have come about since
`environmental review for the ten-year transfer program was evaluated, and doubled down prior
`analytical deficiencies.
`Simply put, it is not 2015, and much has changed since then. The current proposed
`6.
`Project is markedly different than the one originally contemplated over five years ago, having
`been significantly changed in scope. California and the Project area are not as they were when
`environmental analysis for the original project was conducted, yet the EIS/EIR has flagrantly
`cobbled together pieces of the invalidated 2015 EIS/EIR interwoven with fragmented updates
`from the 2019 EIS/EIR. The conditions the original project was evaluated against no longer exist.
`As a result of these numerous and compounding deficiencies, the Project put forth
`7.
`by the Defendants poses a significant threat to the Delta, Sacramento Valley, and water resources
`in California, and the public is left uninformed of these impacts.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`II.
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331 (federal question), 28
`8.
`U.S.C § 1346 (United States as defendant), 28 U.S.C § 2201 (declaratory relief), 28 U.S.C § 2202
`(injunctive relief), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28
`9.
`U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state law claims are related to the federal law claims and form part
`of the same case or controversy. Such state law claims include a claim under the California
`Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., and California Code of Civil
`Procedure §§ 1060, 1085, 1088.5, and 1094.5.
`Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`10.
`1391(e) because defendant USBR is located in Sacramento County, and a substantial part of the
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`III.
`
`events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged in this Complaint occurred and will continue
`to occur in this judicial district.
`This complaint is timely filed within any and all applicable statutes of limitations.
`11.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`Pursuant to Local Rule 120(d), intradistrict assignment of this matter to the
`12.
`Sacramento, Redding, or Fresno Divisions of the Court would be appropriate in that the events or
`omissions which give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred, are occurring, and/or will occur in Butte,
`Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, Santa Clara,
`Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba Counties.
`PARTIES
`IV.
`Petitioner and Plaintiff AQUALLIANCE is a California Public Benefit Corporation
`13.
`organized to protect waters in the northern Sacramento River’s watershed to sustain family farms,
`communities, creeks and rivers, native flora and fauna, vernal pools, and recreation. AquAlliance
`has approximately 637 members who rely on Sacramento Valley groundwater for their livelihoods
`and live, recreate and work in and around waters of the State of California, including the
`Sacramento River, its tributaries, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Bay Delta (“Bay Delta”).
`AquAlliance’s mission is to defend northern California waters and to challenge threats to the
`hydrologic health of the Sacramento River watershed. AquAlliance is especially focused on
`confronting the escalating attempts to divert more and more water from the northern Sacramento
`River hydrologic region to other parts of California.
`Petitioner and Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION
`14.
`ALLIANCE (“CSPA”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the
`State of California with its main office in Stockton, California. CSPA has approximately 2000
`members who live, recreate and work in and around waters of the State of California, including the
`Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, the Delta, Suisun Bay and San Pablo Bay. CSPA is
`dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of the environment, the wildlife and the
`natural resources of all waters of California. To further these goals, CSPA actively seeks federal
`and state agency implementation of the Act and other laws and, where necessary, directly initiates
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its members. CSPA has been actively engaged in
`proceedings relating to the environmental impact of the SWP as well as the federal Central Valley
`Project (“CVP”).
`Petitioner and Plaintiff CALIFORNIA WATER IMPACT NETWORK (“C-WIN”)
`15.
`is a California non-profit public benefit organization with its principal place of business in Santa
`Barbara, California. C-WIN’s organization purpose is the protection and restoration of fish and
`wildlife resources, scenery, water quality, recreational opportunities, agricultural uses, and other
`natural environmental resources and uses of the rivers and streams of California, including the
`Bay-Delta, its watershed and its underlying groundwater resources. C-WIN has members who
`reside in, use, and enjoy the Bay-Delta and inhabit and use its watershed. They use the rivers of
`the Central Valley and the Bay-Delta for nature study, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment. C-WIN
`and its members have been involved in the administrative proceedings that have been provided to
`date for the EIR/EIS, each discussed, below, including providing written comments.
`Petitioner and Plaintiff CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY (“CDWA”) is a
`16.
`political subdivision of the State of California created by the California Legislature under the
`Central Delta Water Agency Act, chapter 1133 of the statutes of 1973 (Wat. Code, Appendix, 117-
`1.1, et seq.), by the provisions of which CDWA came into existence in January of 1974. CDWA’s
`boundaries are specified in Water Code Appendix section 117-9.1 and encompass approximately
`120,000 acres, which are located entirely within both the western portion of San Joaquin County
`and the “Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta” as defined in California Water Code section 12220.
`While the lands within the agency are primarily devoted to agriculture, said lands are also devoted
`to numerous other uses including recreational, wildlife habitat, open space, residential,
`commercial, and institutional uses. CDWA is empowered to “sue and be sued” and to take all
`reasonable and lawful actions, including to pursue legislative and legal action, that have for their
`general purpose either: (1) to protect the water supply of the lands within the agency against
`intrusion of ocean salinity; and (2) to assure the lands within the agency a dependable supply of
`water of suitable quality sufficient to meet present and future needs. The agency may also
`undertake activities to assist landowners and local districts within the agency in reclamation and
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`flood control matters. See Wat. Code, Appendix, 117-4.3, subd. (b) & 117-4.1, subds. (a) and (b),
`respectively. CDWA may assist landowners, districts, and water right holders within its
`boundaries in the protection of vested water rights and may represent the interests of those parties
`in water right proceedings and related proceedings before courts of both the state of California and
`the United States to carry out the purposes of the agency. See Wat. Code, Appendix, 117-4.2,
`subd. (b). Operation of the CVP and the State Water Project (“SWP”) adversely affect flows,
`circulation, levels, and quality of water in the channels within the boundaries of the CDWA to the
`detriment of agricultural and other beneficial water users. By statute, regulation and permit, the
`USBR and the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) are supposed to fully mitigate
`their impacts on such other uses as well as maintain various water quality standards intended to
`protect the Delta estuary and in-Delta users. The CVP and SWP fail to meet these obligations on a
`regular basis, and the proposed Project may exacerbate DWR and USBR’s continued failure to
`meet their obligations, resulting in further impaired water flow, circulation, levels, and quality of
`water.
`
`Petitioner and Plaintiff SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY (“SDWA”) is a
`17.
`political subdivision of the State of California created by the California Legislature under the
`South Delta Water Agency Act, chapter 1089 of the statutes of 1973 (Wat. Code, Appendix, 116-
`1.1, et seq.), by the provisions of which SDWA came into existence in January of 1974. SDWA’s
`boundaries are specified in Water Code Appendix section 116-9.1 and encompass approximately
`148,000 acres which are located entirely within both the south-western portion of San Joaquin
`County and the “Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta” as defined in California Water Code section
`12220. While the lands within the agency are primarily devoted to agriculture, said lands are also
`devoted to numerous other uses including recreational, wildlife habitat, open space, residential,
`commercial, municipal and institutional uses. SDWA is empowered to “sue and be sued” and to
`take all reasonable and lawful actions, including to pursue legislative and legal actions, that have
`for their general purpose either: (1) to protect the water supply of the lands within the agency
`against intrusions of ocean salinity; and/or (2) to assure the lands within the agency a dependable
`supply of water of suitable quality sufficient to meet present and future needs. The agency may
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`also undertake activities to assist landowners and local districts within the agency in reclamation
`and flood control matters. See Wat. Code, Appendix, 116-4.2, subd. (b) & 116-4.1, subds. (a) and
`(b), respectively. SDWA may assist landowners, districts, and water right holders within its
`boundaries in the protection of vested water rights and may represent the interests of those parties
`in water right proceedings and related proceedings before courts of both the state of California and
`the United States to carry out the purposes of the agency. See Wat. Code, Appendix, 116-4.2
`subd. (b). Operation of the CVP and the SWP adversely affect flows, circulation, levels, and
`quality of water in the channels within the boundaries of the SDWA to the detriment of
`agricultural and other beneficial water users. By statute, regulation and permit, the USBR and
`DWR are supposed to fully mitigate their impacts on such other uses as well as maintain various
`water quality standards intended to protect the Delta estuary and in-Delta users. The CVP and
`SWP fail to meet these obligations on a regular basis, and the proposed Project may exacerbate
`DWR and USBR’s continued failure to meet their obligations, resulting in further impaired water
`flow, circulation, levels, and quality of water.
`Respondent and Defendant UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
`18.
`(“USBR”) is a subdivision of the Department of the Interior, an agency of the United States of
`America, and is the Project’s lead agency under the NEPA, 28 U.S.C. section 4321 et seq.
`Respondent and Defendant SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER
`19.
`AUTHORITY (“SLDMWA”) is a joint powers agency established under California law, and
`consists of water agencies representing federal and exchange water service contractors within the
`western San Joaquin Valley, San Benito and Santa Clara counties in the State of California.
`SLMDWA is the Project’s lead agency under CEQA.
`Defendant David Bernhardt is the Secretary of the United States Department of
`20.
`Interior. Plaintiffs name Secretary Bernhardt in this action in his official capacity, for his actions
`or failures to act in an official capacity, or under color of legal authority. Secretary Bernhardt is
`responsible for ensuring that the Department of Interior’s actions comply with its obligations and
`with the APA.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR is responsible for
`21.
`the administration and implementation of the federal reclamation laws, including the 1902
`Reclamation Act, as amended, and others, and for projects operating under its authority, including
`the CVP.
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
`22.
`coconspirator, partner or alter-ego of those Defendants and Respondents sued herein under the
`fictitious names of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are not known to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue
`those Defendants and Respondents by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will ask leave of court to
`amend this Complaint and insert the true names and capacities of these defendants and
`respondents when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that
`basis allege, that each of the Defendants and Respondents designated herein as a DOE defendant
`and respondent is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings alleged in this
`Complaint, and that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were proximately caused by the defendants’
`conduct.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`V.
`In late 2010 and early 2011, USBR published a Notice of Intent in the Federal
`23.
`Register and a Notice of Preparation in the California State Clearinghouse for a “Long-Term
`Water Transfers” project that would cover ten years of transfers. USBR and SLDMWA released a
`Draft EIS/EIR for public and agency review and comment in 2014, and a Final EIS/EIR was
`released in 2015. SLDMWA later approved the Project, certified the EIR, and filed a Notice of
`Determination, while USBR signed its Record of Decision that same year.
`The so-called “Long-Term Water Transfers” project was a ten-year programmatic
`24.
`analysis of water transfers from willing sellers to Central Valley Project contractors south and
`west of the Delta. The original “Long-Term Water Transfers” would have been a destructive force
`on groundwater dependent communities and farms, streams, species, and habitat in the
`Sacramento Valley and the Delta’s wildlife, water quality and legal-water users.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`Plaintiffs, along with other parties, challenged the “Long-term Water Transfers” in
`25.
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the case AquAlliance, et al., v.
`U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, et al. 287 F.Supp.3d 969 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (AquAlliance).
`On February 15, 2018, the District Court issued its Memorandum Decision and
`26.
`Order, finding for Plaintiffs on several core issues and some of the most significant impacts of the
`“Long-term Water Transfers” program and project. The District Court found violations of NEPA,
`CEQA and the Endangered Species Act with respect to inadequate analysis of biological impacts
`due to reduced delta outflow, improperly deferred mitigation for groundwater impacts, failure to
`adequately analyze the effectiveness of mitigation measures for groundwater impacts, inadequate
`mitigation for land subsidence, inadequate analysis of changed hydrologic conditions resulting
`from climate change, and inadequate analysis and mitigation for impacts to giant garter snake.
`Rather than accept that the Court had indeed invalidated demonstrably flawed
`27.
`documents, the Defendants fought to avoid vacatur and decertification of the 2015 EIS/EIR and
`the Biological Opinion (“BiOp”). This forced the Court to ask for supplemental briefing and
`subsequently make clear to the unwilling Defendants that it was necessary to vacate both
`documents in their entirety, due to the severity and pervasiveness of the violations.
`On July 5, 2018, the District Court entered judgment, vacating SLDMWA’s and
`28.
`USBR’s decisions to approve the Final Long-Term Water Transfers EIS/EIR and approve the
`Proposed Action, vacating the 2015 EIS/EIR, and vacating the BiOp.
`In February of 2019, USBR and SLDMWA released a Draft Revised EIS/EIR for
`29.
`public comment for the Project, which purported to only cover water transfers for 2019-2024. The
`Project is held out by USBR and SLDMWA as merely a modified, shortened version of the
`“Long-term Water Transfers” program that was previously vacated. However, numerous changes
`to the Project, including new sellers, the shortened time-frame, and unenforceable limits on
`transfers combine to render the Project a distinct endeavor from the “Long-Term Water
`Transfers.”
`Plaintiffs, wary of USBR and SLDMWA’s attempt to engage in as little
`30.
`environmental review as possible while purporting to comply with the District Court’s ruling in
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`AquAlliance, supra, 287 F.Supp.3d. 969, commented extensively on the Draft
`Supplemental/Revised EIS/EIR and the Final Supplemental/Revised EIS/EIR.
`The EIS/EIR is nothing more than USBR and SLDMWA’s failed attempt to update
`31.
`the 2015 FEIS/EIR document, in piecemeal fashion, in response to the Court’s ruling in
`AquAlliance, supra, 287 F.Supp.3d. 969. Not only have USBR and SLDMWA not made changes
`to rectify the flaws detailed in the District Court’s ruling, they have created a EIS/EIR that is
`confusing and unusable as an informational document.
`USBR and SLDMWA have failed to provide an accurate project description as
`32.
`required under both NEPA and CEQA. The most glaring example of the many flaws in the
`Project description is the inclusion of two unenforceable assurances: that transfers in any one year
`would not exceed 250,000 acre-feet; and that transfers would only occur in two years out of the
`Project’s 2019-2024 period. These assurances are not actual elements of the Project as they are
`unenforceable. There is no mitigation measure, coordinated operations agreement, or any other
`enforcement mechanism to this effect. The EIS/EIR also makes the critical error of relying on the
`same baseline as the 2015 EIS/EIR, despite significant changed circumstances and new
`information.
`33. Most troubling of all is that the Project, despite having a six-year as opposed to a
`ten-year time frame, would still pose a considerable threat to groundwater dependent communities
`and farms, streams, species, and habitat in the Sacramento Valley and the Delta, wildlife, water
`quality, and in-Delta water users. USBR and SLDMWA do not take these significant risks
`seriously, as reflected in the EIS/EIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts.
`The Project’s water transfers would be facilitated by groundwater substitution,
`34.
`reservoir releases, cropland idling, crop shifting, and conservation. These methods each carry
`their own impacts on the environment, while exacerbating impacts from other sources such as
`global climate change.
`Groundwater substitution impacts groundwater, risking basin overdraft, stream
`35.
`depletion and cones of depression. Cones of depression are not isolated to single points, but cause
`region-wide impacts across zones of influence. Stream depletion occurs when lowered
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`groundwater levels cause increased seepage from streams. These effects from excess groundwater
`pumping cause impacts to agriculture operations, the availability of groundwater for other users,
`and biological impacts to species that rely on the depleted streams as habitat as well as terrestrial
`habitat.
`Significant impacts to groundwater would conflict with local agencies’ compliance
`36.
`with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Public Trust Doctrine.
`The Project would impact groundwater basins, such as the Sacramento Valley
`37.
`Groundwater Basin that is already in decline with all but one of the Project’s subbasins rated as
`high or medium priority under SGMA. The Project will exacerbate existing conditions, and impair
`existing domestic and agricultural wells.
`38. Moreover, the Project will exacerbate the impacts of global climate change on
`groundwater resources. As climate change limits the availability of surface water, groundwater
`will be increasingly relied on, further threatening existing groundwater levels. The Project would
`compound those impacts through groundwater substitutions for surface water sold.
`Drastic enough groundwater depletion creates the risk of ground subsidence, which
`39.
`is already occurring in the seller service areas.
`Stream depletion leads to impacts to deep-rooted vegetation. Loss of vegetation in
`40.
`conjunction with stream depletion leads to higher water temperatures and increased
`evapotranspiration, further lowering surface water levels. These impacts compound one another
`and would devastate wildlife inhabit those streams.
`Crop idling and shifting destroys habitat for endangered species such as the giant
`41.
`garter snake. The giant garter snake relies on active rice fields and the supporting water
`conveyance infrastructure as alternative habitat in the absence of suitable natural marsh. The
`Project could result in the elimination of 12 percent of the active rice fields by crop idling and
`shifting, directly affecting giant garter snake habitat.
`The Project’s mitigation for impacts to giant garter snakes is inadequate and flies in
`42.
`the face of well-established science. The Project would only protect the water conveyance
`infrastructure associated with rice fields, the canals, levees, and ditches that giant garter snake use
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`for intermittent period while travelling between more established habitat. Protecting only the
`conveyance features, and not the actual rice fields, jeopardizes giant garter snake populations.
`Rice fields are unquestionably important habitat resource for giant garter snakes.
`Limiting giant garter snake habitat would lead to increased dispersal, predation, and
`43.
`reduced reproduction leading to population-level effects.
`44. Much like groundwater impacts, the Project would also exacerbate the effects of
`global climate change on giant garter snakes. Destruction of habitat and reduced streamflow
`caused by global climate change would be magnified by the Project’s water transfer methods.
`Further, increased temperatures put additional stress on ectothermic animals such as the giant
`garter snake that must constantly regulate body temperatures within narrow ranges.
`The full extent of the Project’s impacts on these environmental resources, however,
`45.
`cannot be known as USBR and SLDMWA have failed to incorporate new information and
`changed circumstances into their analysis of the Project. Further, the EIS/EIR relies on outdated
`studies and methodologies to analyze and mitigate impacts
`VI.
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`Administrative Procedure Act
`The APA confers a right of judicial review on any person that is adversely affected
`46.
`by agency action. See 5. U.S.C. § 702.
`The APA provides that the reviewing court “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside
`47.
`agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be [] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
`discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” as well as findings that are “unsupported by
`substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (E). Claimed violations of both NEPA and the
`CPVIA are reviewed under the APA.
`National Environmental Policy Act
`The Project is subject to the environmental review process of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §
`48.
`4321. NEPA requires the Federal government to use all practicable means to improve and
`coordinate federal activities to create and maintain conditions in which people and nature can exist
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`Petition and Complaint of AquAlliance et al.
`
`
`
`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 2:20-cv-00959-JAM-DMC Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`in “productive harmony.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331. NEPA is an environmental full-disclosure law so
`that federal agencies must consider all environmental consequences of their decisions.
`“NEPA . . . makes environmental protection a part of the mandate of every federal
`49.
`agency and department,” Calvert Cliffs’ Coord. Com. v. United States, 440 F.2d 1109, 112 (D.C.
`Cir. 1971), and is the “basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. §
`1500.1(a). Its purpose is “to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding
`of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the
`environment.” Id. § 1500.1(c). The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), an agency
`within the Executive Office of the President, has promulgated regulations implementing NEPA.
`See 10 C.F.R. § 1021.103.
`Among other things, NEPA requires all agencies of the federal government to
`50.
`prepare a “detailed statement” that discusses the environmental effects of, and reasonable
`alternatives to, all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
`environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). This statement is commonly known as an environmental
`impact statement (“EIS”). An EIS must describe: (1) the “environmental impact of the proposed
`action”; (2) any “adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
`implemented”; and (3) any “alternatives to the proposed action.” Id. The environmental “effects”
`that must be considered in an EIS include “indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are
`later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” 40 C.F.R. §
`1508.8(b).
`
`California Environmental Quality Act
`CEQA has two purposes: environmental protection and informed self-government.
`51.
`Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno, 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 690-691 (2007).
`CEQA is “to be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the
`reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., 16
`Cal.4th 105, 134 (1997). CEQA requires agencies to “take all action necessary to protect,
`rehabilitate, and e