Judge says environmental groups fell short in bid to pause California water projects

The decision hinged on the interpretation of a 2024 Endangered Species Act biological opinion.OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Monday opted to impose no restrictions on operations for a massive California water conveyance system, determining environmental groups failed to meet their burden.U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston wrote that the Center for Biological Diversity and other plaintiffs must make a heightened showing before she will issue a preliminary injunction over the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of Shasta Dam and Reservoir this summer and fall.The ruling comes after Thurston’s decision in early July to deny a temporary restraining order on water operations, while still leaving open the possibility of a preliminary injunction.The groups argued the bureau’s operation of the Central Valley Project, including Shasta Dam, and California’s State Water Project failed to comply with a 2024 biological opinion issued under the Endangered Species Act. They asked the Joe Biden appointee to reduce water releases from Shasta and require the government to adopt a new operating plan.Seeking to protect vulnerable fish species, the groups wanted at least 2.4 million acre-feet of water in Shasta Reservoir at September’s end, as well as water downstream a certain point at 53.5 degrees or lower.“The court acknowledges that the most up-to-date temperature modeling suggests that impacts to incubating salmonid eggs in the upper Sacramento River are likely to be more severe than managers anticipated earlier in the season,” Thurston wrote. “However concerning, this fact does not on its own empower the court to act in the absence of a sufficiently strong showing on the merits of the claim that forms the foundation of the present motion.”According to Thurston, the main question is how to interpret the 2024 biological opinion.In her ruling, Thurston cited the 2024 opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service, which concluded that project operations would not adversely affect critical habitat for protected species, including the endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon.The bureau projected Shasta would hold more than 3.7 million acre-feet of water by the end of April but only 2.2 million by the end of September. The groups say that projection violated the biological opinion and filed suit.Thurston noted the challenge is narrow. The groups are not asking the court to review whether the government is complying with the Endangered Species Act. Instead, they argue the bureau improperly designated this year, a designation that determines how water temperature and storage levels are managed.“Plaintiffs’ approach to determining the status quo presumes their interpretation of BiOp’s terms is correct, notwithstanding the fact that the BiOp (with its disputed terms) was in effect during the period they contend operates as the status quo,” Thurston wrote.That means the groups’ request to operate the water projects under their interpretation of the biological opinion would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo and therefore is subject to heightened scrutiny, the judge added.The groups have said the biological opinion wasn’t written by the bureau, which doesn’t specialize in species protection. The courts must resolve questions like this in favor of the species.Even so, Thurston wrote the biological opinion appeared to support the groups’ argument. Because the reservoir held more than 3.7 million acre-feet of water at the end of April, she said, the applicable operational category appeared clear.However, the judge added that the opinion also indicates that a different approach is used to determine the system’s operations, which bolsters the bureau’s argument.The groups wanted Thurston to find that end-of-April storage levels dictate a specific operations category. But the bureau said the rules provide it with necessary flexibility during lean water years.“Ultimately, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs do not appear likely to succeed on the claim they advance in the present motion and certainly not with the level of certainty required to obtain a mandatory injunction,” Thurston wrote.Harrison Beck, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement to Courthouse News that he was disappointed the judge didn’t intervene.“This is unfortunate news for winter-run Chinook salmon and other fish species below the dam that are already teetering on the brink of extinction," he added. “These struggling fish populations deserve protections under the law, and we’ll continue fighting to make sure they get them.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads