Update on Challenge to Reclamation's Supplemental Storage Releases from CVP's Lewiston Dam

Following a two day hearing, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 22, 2013, lifted a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting excess releases of stored water into the Trinity River from the Central Valley Project’s Trinity River Division.  

The TRO had been in place since August 12.  In lifting the TRO and declining to issue a preliminary injunction, the court observed that the amount of CVP water slated for release had fallen to some 20,000 acre-feet, which is down from the more than 100,000 acre-feet originally contemplated by Reclamation.  In deciding not to enjoin the smaller storage release, the Court compared the risk of harm to fall-run Chinook salmon to the risk of harm from reducing water supplies for people.  The order acknowledges that “[b]oth sides of this dispute represent significant public interests. . . . Neither side holds veto power over the other.”

Related Posts:

• Court Extends Temporary Restraining Order Against Excess Storage Releases From CVP's Trinity River Division
• Temporary Restraining Order Granted in Lawsuit Challenging the Bureau of Reclamation's Planned August and September 2013 Supplemental Releases from Lewiston Dam

Court Extends Temporary Restraining Order Against Excess Storage Releases From CVP's Trinity River Division

On August 14, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California extended a modified temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting excess releases of stored water into the Trinity River from the Central Valley Project's ("CVP") Trinity River Division.

Citing likely violations of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act's Trinity River Restoration Program Record of Decision ("TRROD") and the National Environmental Policy Act, the court extended the TRO to August 23 after finding “that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm that is not clearly outweighed by the equities on the other side."

Some 453,000 acre-feet of CVP water is already being released from the Trinity River Division in 2013 for the benefit of fall-run Chinook salmon in the Trinity River system pursuant to the TRROD.  The court extended the TRO despite opposition from the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and federal government contending that the excess CVP storage releases may prevent a possible disease outbreak that could affect Chinook salmon in the lower Klamath River.

The TRO prohibits the Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”) from releasing into the Trinity River up to 109,000 acre-feet of water from storage in the federal CVP's Trinity and Lewiston reservoirs, pending an expedited hearing in which Federal Defendants are ordered to show cause why the modified TRO should not be converted to a preliminary injunction.

In the modified TRO, the court acknowledges the potential economic and environmental harms to Plaintiffs if the water releases go forward, while acknowledging questions about “whether these augmentation flows are truly necessary to prevent fish kills like that experienced in 2002.”  

Related Post:

• Temporary Restraining Order Granted in Lawsuit Challenging the Bureau of Reclamation's Planned August and September 2013 Supplemental Releases from Lewiston Dam 

Ninth Circuit Rejects Claims to Area of Origin Priority by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority

On July 1, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion rejecting assertions by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority (“TCCA”) that California area of origin law entitled its member districts to priority deliveries of Central Valley Project (“CVP”) water and that the Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau”) acted in violation of law by delivering less than 100% of contract amounts during contractual “Conditions of Shortage.”  With the opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 2011 decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, discussed here.

In an opinion by Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson, the court ruled that California area of origin laws, in particular Water Code section 11460, do not require the Bureau to prioritize the allocation of Federally-appropriated CVP water to Sacramento Valley CVP contractors. 

In addition, the court concluded that the “clear contract language” of TCCA members’ water service contracts provides that TCCA members are not entitled to the full amount of water contracted for, and “may have to endure pro rata reduction in times of shortage, along with other CVP contractors.”

Finally, the court held that validation judgments foreclosed TCCA and its members from seeking to “circuitously undo the contract provisions to which they previously acceded.”  The validation judgments, which became final in 2005, validated the water service contracts under California law. 

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in the case, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, et al., Case No. 11-17199, may be found here.

Related Posts:

• District Court Rejects Claims to Area of Origin Priority by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
• Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority Appeals Area of Origin Decision
• KMTG Legal Alert: Sacramento Valley Farmers Have No Prior Right To Central Valley Project Water Under Area Of Origin Laws

Bureau of Reclamation Reduces 2013 CVP Allocations by 5 Percent

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation today decreased the Water Year 2013 water supply allocations for the Central Valley Project, citing the extremely dry conditions in California.  Reclamation's announcement is quoted below:

Following a wet start to the water year in November and December 2012, the January – March period is tracking to be the driest on record, resulting in a critical classification for both the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins based on the 90-percent exceedence forecast. Reclamation is announcing a decrease in the allocation for the following South-of-Delta water service contractors:

• Agricultural water service contractors’ allocation is decreased from 25 to 20 percent of their contract supply.

• Municipal & Industrial contractors’ allocation is decreased from 75 to 70 percent of their historic use.

The initial CVP allocation in February was low, based in part on pumping restrictions needed to protect threatened fish species under the Endangered Species Act; however, this decreased allocation for South-of-Delta contractors is based on the critical water year classification, the projection of reduced Delta inflows this spring, significant loss of reservoir storage to support pumping this summer and water quality permit requirements.

“We are facing a challenging water year, but we continue to look for opportunities to facilitate supplemental water supplies through water transfer and exchange programs and new arrangements that could lead to additional flows in the system,” stated Mid-Pacific Regional Director David Murillo. “We are exploring all options to assist in alleviating the serious impacts of these drought conditions.”

The decreased allocations have occurred despite recent actions being taken by Reclamation to help shore up water supplies.  Some of these actions include the completion of the Delta-Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie in May 2012 and the securing of water to supplement CVP supplies as a result of the Yuba Accord.

“Reclamation continues working with our partners to find a comprehensive, long-term solution to achieve the dual goals of a reliable water supply for California and a healthy Bay Delta ecosystem that supports the state’s economy,” Murillo said. “It should be noted that the successful completion of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan would include a new diversion and conveyance facility utilizing state-of-the-art protections for endangered fish species, which would improve water supply reliability even in years such as this, while improving environmental conditions in the Delta.”

For more information on this issue or other natural resource developments please contact Hanspeter Walter or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.

Oral Argument Scheduled For Ninth Circuit Appeals in Three Cases Involving the Central Valley Project

On October 9, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a notice of oral argument in three cases involving the Central Valley Project and water rights.  The Ninth Circuit will hear argument in the cases of San Luis Unit Food Producers v. USA, Ninth Circuit Case No. 11-16122, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. U.S. Department of the Interior, Ninth Circuit Case No. 11-17199, and Firebaugh Canal Water District v. USA, Ninth Circuit Case No. 11-17715, on December 5, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in the James R. Browning United States Courthouse in San Francisco, California.  The court will reveal the identity of panel members not earlier than the week before the case will be heard.

In San Luis Unit Food Producers v. USA, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that plaintiffs in the case lacked standing to sue the Department of the Interior.  Plaintiffs had alleged the government violated reclamation law by unlawfully withholding water for environmental purposes.  Briefing in the San Luis Unit Food Producers appeal completed on October 25, 2011. 

In Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. U.S. Department of the Interior, the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority (“TCCA”) challenges the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California’s ruling that water users in the Sacramento Valley have no preferential right to deliver of Central Valley Project under California’s so-called “area of origin” laws.  Briefing in the TCCA appeal completed on July 2, 2012. 

Lastly, in Firebaugh Canal Water District v. USA, the issue on appeal is whether the San Luis Act imposes a clear legal duty on the Federal government to provide drainage for lands located outside the boundaries of the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project.  The origins of the litigation date back to 1988 and this appeal challenges the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California's ruling that the Federal government's interpretation of the San Luis Act, as imposing no mandatory duty to provide drainage service outside the San Luis Unit, is a reasonable and lawful interpretation, entitled to deference.  Briefing in the Firebaugh appeal completed on July 30, 2012.    

In each of the three appeals, the parties for each side are given twenty minutes for argument.

Related Stories:

• Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority Appeals Area of Origin Decision
• KMTG Legal Alert: Sacramento Valley Farmers Have No Prior Right to Central Valley Project Water under Area of Origin Laws
• District Court Rejects Claims to Area of Origin Priority by Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority

Ninth Circuit Dismisses "Fall X2" Appeal for Mootness

On August 23, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order in San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority, et al. v. Salazar, et al., Appeal No. 11-17143, granting Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal. 

The Fall X2 Action is an action in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative identified in the 2008 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biological opinion regarding the effects of the long-term operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on the delta smelt.  In the August 23, 2012 order, the Ninth Circuit held: "Because the implementation period for the Fall X2 Action has passed, any challenge to the district court's injunction is moot." 

As a result of the order, the scheduled oral argument for the two Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases appeals will no longer include oral argument on the propriety of the district court's August 31, 2011 decision that enjoined the federal government from implementing the Fall X2 Action, which, absent the injunction, would have restricted California's water supply by hundreds of thousands of acre feet.

Related Stories:

• Oral Argument Scheduled for Ninth CircuitAppeals in the Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases
• Federal District Court Enjoins Water Supply Restrictions Under Delta Smelt Biological Opinion

 

Pacific Legal Foundation Files Petition To De-List Killer Whale

In a petition to de-list filed today, attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation assert that the 2005 listing of the Southern Resident killer whale distinct population segment (“DPS”) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is illegal. The petition, filed on behalf of a non-profit organization and two San Joaquin Valley farms, petitions the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to de-list the Southern Resident killer whale DPS as endangered. The Southern Resident killer whale DPS was listed as endangered in 2005 and is the only population of killer whale that is listed under the ESA.

The principal argument asserted in the petition to de-list is that the Southern Resident killer whale DPS is a DPS of a subspecies, and the listing of a DPS of a subspecies is not authorized by the ESA. The petition asserts that because the ESA only authorizes the listing of a species, subspecies, and DPSs of species, the listing of a DPS of a subspecies is not authorized.

In addition, the petition argues that the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) should de-list the Southern Resident DPS because “the subspecies designation on which it is founded is without scientific basis.” The petition asserts that NMFS’s designation of a North Pacific resident subspecies is not supported by genetic data, and that many of the differences between populations of killer whales can be explained as learned behaviors or responses to varying environmental conditions, rather than genetic differences.

Two of the petitioners are farms located in the San Joaquin Valley, who suffered severe water supply cutbacks in 2009, “in part due to the protections afforded the killer whale under the ESA.” The Southern Resident DPS was one of the species considered in a 2009 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS, which concluded that the ongoing operations of the State Water Project (“SWP”) and the federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) would jeopardize the continued existence of several species, including the Southern Resident killer whale. That Biological Opinion, in part, resulted in severe water supply cutbacks to the farmers that rely on water from the SWP and CVP. The petition identifies “the delisting of the killer whale [as] one necessary step in preventing further catastrophic water cutbacks.”

The 2009 Biological Opinion was found to be arbitrary and capricious by a federal district court and was remanded back to NMFS. See Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Cal. 2011). That district court decision is now the subject of multiple appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. (Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 12-15144, 12-15289, 12-15290, 12-15291, 12-15293, and 12-15296.)

For additional information regarding the petition to de-list the killer whale, please contact Elizabeth Leeper or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.  Additional information regarding the listing of Southern Resident DPS is available here.

Related Story:
Court Finds 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion Arbitrary and Capricious and Remands to National Marine Fisheries Services

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects Challenges to 43 Federal Water Contracts

On July 17, 2012 the Ninth Circuit issued an important opinion rejecting challenges to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's renewal of 43 water contracts in 2004-2005.  The contracts at issue consisted of two general types - water service contracts in the Delta Mendota Canal Unit of the Central Valley Project and Sacramento River Settlement contracts. 

The case stems back to litigation over a 2005 biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of State and Federal water project operations on the threatened delta smelt.  That 2005 BiOp was challenged by environmental groups and ruled invalid by the district court.  In an attempt to ride the wave of that success, the same environmental groups then filed a supplemental complaint challenging the earlier contract renewals by the Bureau as invalid because they had partially incorporated the 2005 BiOp.  The district court rejected these claims because the water service contracts expressly provided and allowed for the Bureau to change CVP operations (including reducing deliveries) in any way required by the ESA, and therefore their execution and existence did not cause any actual harm to the delta smelt.  With respect to the settlement contracts, the district court generally found that the Bureau had no discretion to alter their terms and therefore the ESA consultation provisions did not apply to the renewal of those contracts. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed both district court rulings, rejecting challenges to both types of water contracts.  The opinion can be found here.

If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact, Daniel J. O’Hanlon, Hanspeter Walter, or Rebecca Akroyd.
    

Bureau of Reclamation Announces Updated CVP Water Allocations

Today, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provided a Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply allocation update of 100 percent to North-of-Delta agricultural water service contractors and 40 percent to South-of-Delta agricultural water service contractors.  Both amounts reflect an increase from the initial allocation of 30 percent for agricultural contractors North- and South-of-Delta.  Municipal and Industrial water service contractors remain projected to receive 75 percent of their historic use.

In addition, the allocations for Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and San Joaquin River Exchange and Settlement Contractors have increased to 100 percent from the initial allocation of 75 percent.  The wildlife refuges allocation has also increased to 100 percent.

Reclamation's press release announcing the increased allocation may be found here.

For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.

Related stories:
DWR Reduces 2012 Allocation to 50%; Reclamation Announces Initial 2012 Allocation of 30%
Department of Water Resources Announces 60% Initial Allocation for 2012

Department of Interior Announces Over $11 Million in Funding for the Central Valley Project

The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, recently announced $50 million in funding for water infrastructure projects in the West, including over $11 million in funding for the Central Valley Project (CVP).

The 2012 Spending Plan for the Bureau of Reclamation, which manages and operates the CVP, allocates over $11 million in funding to the CVP for fish screens and fish passage facilities ($4.3 million); water conservation and water delivery activities ($4 million); environmental restoration and compliance ($1.75 million); and facility operation and maintenance ($1.044 million). The remaining funds will be spent on a variety of projects throughout the West, with $30 million allocated to rural water construction projects in North Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, and elsewhere. The Bureau's 2012 budget may be found here.

Notably, the 2012 Spending Plan states that the funds for CVP-related environmental restoration and compliance will “support the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act environmental compliance processes to comply with federal district court rulings on both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinions.” As we previously reported, a federal district court concluded that the 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful and remanded the Biological Opinion back to NMFS. The same court concluded that the 2008 Delta Smelt Biological Opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful and remanded that Biological Opinion back to FWS. (See related stories here and here.)

For more information regarding this matter, please contact Elizabeth Leeper or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.

Related stories:

• Court Denies "Fall X2" Motions and Finds Agency Bad Faith
• Federal District Court Enjoins Water Supply Restrictions Under Delta Smelt Biological Opinion
• Court Finds 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion Arbitrary and Capricious and Remands to National Marine Fisheries Services

Court Approves Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012

We recently reported that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and public water agencies filed a stipulation with the United States Eastern District Court that proposed modified Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) operations for the period of April 1 to May 31, 2012.

Today, the parties received notice that the Court has approved the stipulation, and adopted it as an order of the Court. A copy of the signed order may be found here.

For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or K. Eric Adair, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.

Related story:

• Parties in Salmon Litigation File Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012

Parties in Salmon Litigation File Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012

On January 12, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and public water agencies filed a stipulation with the United States Eastern District Court that proposes modified Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) operations for the period of April 1 to May 31, 2012.

The stipulation describes the state and federal agencies' agreement to install a seasonal rock barrier at the head of Old River, near Lathrop, designed to keep salmonids from entering Old River, in the direction of the export pumps. The stipulation also includes more flexible guidelines governing permissible flows in Old and Middle Rivers and an increased commitment to acoustic tagging of listed fish to gather information on migratory patterns.

The parties filed the Joint Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012 (available here) in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases, Case No. 1:09-cv-1053, the case challenging the biological opinion that governs long-term operations of the CVP and SWP. In September 2011, the district court issued a memorandum decision finding the so-called 2009 Salmonid BiOp and its Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. A later order by the court indicated that parties to the case could present stipulations on project operations in 2012.

Because the judgment entered in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases remanded the 2009 Salmonid BiOp and RPA, without vacatur, it had the effect of leaving RPA actions in place, notwithstanding the court's finding that they were unlawful. Had the parties not agreed on modified operations for April 1 to May 31 of this year, RPA Action IV.2.1, which sets a San Joaquin River inflow-to-export ratio requirement for the same period, would likely have severely restricted CVP and SWP operations.

Concurrent with a press release announcing the stipulation (available here), NMFS also made public its "Summary of the Expected Benefits to Salmonid Survival of a Rock Barrier at the Head of Old River & Preferential Use of the Central Valley Project Export Facility" (available here). The summary describes the expected benefits of placing a rock barrier at the head of Old River, as well as an explanation of the adaptive range of Old and Middle River flows included in the plan for 2012 operations and the rationale for preferential diversion of water through the CVP facility rather than the SWP facility.

For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or K. Eric Adair, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.

Related story:

• Court Finds 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion Arbitrary and Capricious and Remands to National Marine Fisheries Services

OCAP Annual Independent Science Review Panel to Convene November 8-9, 2011

The 2011 Operations Criteria and Plan ("OCAP") annual independent science review will take place on November 8-9, 2011, in Sacramento. The meeting announcement and agenda, with instructions on participating via the internet, may be found here.

Under the auspices of the Delta Science Program ("DSP"), an independent science panel comprised of various academics and experts will convene to review the implementation of the OCAP for the prior year’s operations. The purpose of the review is to provide critical information to the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") about the effectiveness of the prior year’s water operations and regulatory actions. NMFS and FWS have issued biological opinions and reasonable and prudent alternatives ("RPA") on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project relative to salmonids and smelt, respectively. The agencies have requested that the DSP convene the panel to provide a technical review on the implementation of the biological opinions and RPAs. The specific charge to the panel may be found here.

The panelists are:

• James Anderson, Ph.D., University of Washington
• James Gore, Ph.D., University of Tampa
• Ron Kneib, Ph.D., RTK Consulting & University of Georgia (Emeritus)
• Mark Lorang, Ph.D., University of Montana
• John Van Sickle, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Western Ecology Division

The annual review will be conducted Tuesday, November 8, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, November 9, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Both days' sessions will take place at 650 Capitol Mall, Stanford Room (first floor), in Sacramento. Sessions should be available on the internet.

Copies of all materials for the annual review, including review materials and background information, may be found here.

For more information regarding this matter, please contact Eric Adair or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.

Federal District Court Enjoins Water Supply Restrictions Under Delta Smelt Biological Opinion

On August 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California enjoined the federal government from implementing the so-called “Fall X2” measure, which, absent the injunction, would have restricted California’s water supply by hundreds of thousands of acre feet.

In his 140-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Judge Oliver W. Wanger granted a motion filed by State Water Contractors, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Kern County Water Agency, Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, and Westlands Water District to enjoin implementation of the Fall X2 Action.  The Fall X2 Action is part of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative set forth in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's December 15, 2008, biological opinion, which addressed impacts of the coordinated operations of the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project on the threatened Delta smelt.

Intended as a measure to improve fall habitat for Delta smelt growth and rearing, the Fall X2 Action would require sufficient Delta outflow to maintain a monthly average location of two parts per thousand salinity (X2) at or more westward than 74 kilometers from the Golden Gate Bridge in 2011, a "wet" water year.  Absent an injunction, "[t]he estimated cost to water users [of implementing Component 3] is 670,000 acre feet ('AF') of water if 2012 is a critically dry or dry year, or 300,000 AF if [2012] is a below normal or above normal year."  (Findings at p. 3.)

The court held that "the record reveals no support for a direct link between X2 and smelt abundance."  (Findings at p. 134.)  The court further explained:

The scientific evidence in support of imposing any Fall X2 action is manifestly equivocal.  There is essentially no biological evidence to support the necessity of the specific 74 km requirement set to be triggered in this 'wet' water year.  The agencies still 'don't get it.'  They continue to believe their 'right to be mistaken' excuses precise and competent scientific analysis for actions they know will wreak havoc on California's water supply.

(Findings at p. 139.)  "Balancing the imperiled status of the species, the equivocal and highly disputed support for the X2 action, and the even weaker and unjustified support for position X2 at 74 km, against the substantial and damaging water supply impact of doing so," the court enjoined the Fall X2 Action or any other attempt by Federal Defendants to set Fall X2 westward of 79km.  The court held that "limiting the X2 position to 80 km or 79 km achieves equity."  (Findings at p. 140.)

This latest ruling in the Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases follows a December 2010 decision by the court, in which it found that restrictions on Delta pumping under the biological opinion were not adequately justified, and a May 2011 final judgment that remanded the biological opinion and required issuance of a new biological opinion by December 1, 2013.

A complete copy of the court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law can be found here.

The biological opinion for Delta smelt may be found here.

If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Rebecca Akroyd, Hanspeter Walter, Daniel J. O'Hanlon, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.