394 F.Supp.3d 984
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- Petitioners (San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper & Los Padres Forestwatch) sued in California state court seeking releases from Twitchell Dam to maintain steelhead under Cal. Fish & Game Code § 5937.
- The state court found the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) a necessary party because Twitchell operations affect the litigation; Petitioners amended to add BOR and the case was removed to federal court under federal officer removal (28 U.S.C. § 1442).
- The BOR and other federal defendants moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity because the petition asserts only state-law claims.
- Petitioners argued the McCarran Amendment (43 U.S.C. § 666) waived federal sovereign immunity for water-rights-related suits and thus the United States is amenable to suit.
- The court evaluated whether this action (or the earlier Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation with which this case was coordinated) constituted an adjudication or administration of water rights within McCarran’s scope.
- The court concluded McCarran did not apply, dismissed the federal defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denied leave to amend (to add an ESA claim) without prejudice based on derivative-jurisdiction principles, and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity is waived under the McCarran Amendment | McCarran waives immunity because this litigation concerns Twitchell releases and relates to prior coordinated groundwater adjudication | Federal defendants retain sovereign immunity; neither the prior groundwater litigation nor this petition adjudicated U.S. water rights or falls within § 666(a) | McCarran does not apply; sovereign immunity not waived; federal defendants dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether § 666(a)(2) (administration of rights) applies without prior adjudication under § 666(a)(1) | Petition is effectively administering previously adjudicated Twitchell-related rights via the coordinated proceedings | § 666(a)(2) requires a prior general-stream adjudication under (a)(1); that adjudication did not determine federal water rights | (a)(2) inapplicable here because no prior adjudication of U.S. water rights; Petition is an enforcement of state environmental law, not administration of adjudicated rights |
| Whether the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation adjudicated federal water rights such that McCarran applies | The Stipulation’s operational parameters (requiring compliance with BOR requirements) amounted to adjudication/administration implicating the United States | The stipulation did not adjudicate U.S. water rights; it merely required compliance with applicable law and acknowledged BOR’s operational role | The prior litigation did not adjudicate U.S. water rights; Stipulation reference to BOR requirements is not an adjudication of federal rights |
| Whether amendment to add an ESA claim should be allowed after dismissal | Petitioners sought leave to add an ESA claim and argued leave should be freely given | Defendants argued derivative-jurisdiction doctrine bars amendment because the federal court’s jurisdiction is derivative of state court and now lacking | Court denied leave without prejudice (may refile in state court) because removal under § 1442 yields derivative jurisdiction and court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012) (sovereign immunity bars suits based solely on state law absent waiver)
- United States v. Dist. Court In & For Eagle Cty., Colo., 401 U.S. 520 (1971) (McCarran Amendment’s purpose: permit joinder of the U.S. to adjudicate water-rights on a stream)
- FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012) (ambiguities in waiver construed for the sovereign)
- S. Delta Water Agency v. United States Dep't of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 767 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1985) (§ 666(a)(2) requires prior adjudication under (a)(1))
- Hennen v. United States, 300 F. Supp. 256 (D. Nev. 1968) (administration under § 666(a)(2) contemplates enforcement and interpretation of prior adjudications)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent good cause)
- Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 (1981) (doctrine of derivative jurisdiction limits federal court jurisdiction on removal when state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction)