State of California v. Wheeler

Background

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final determination in March 2019 concerning whether waters within the Redwood City Salt Ponds were subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The determination concluded that the contested area did not contain “waters of the United States” and therefore was not entitled to the Clean Water Act’s protections. That conclusion differed from a November 2016 draft prepared by the agency’s San Francisco-based Region 9, which found that most of the area was covered by the Act.

Two lawsuits challenged the March 2019 determination. One was brought by San Francisco Baykeeper and other nonprofit environmental organizations, and the other was brought by the State of California. Both complaints sought to set aside and declare unlawful the agency’s determination, alleging among other things that it was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, and contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act.

Redwood City Plant Site, LLC, also known as DMB Redwood City Saltworks, had requested the jurisdictional determination. The company moved to intervene in both lawsuits. The plaintiffs ultimately filed statements of non-opposition to intervention.

Consolidation

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may consolidate cases that share a common question of law or fact. The court concluded that the California and Baykeeper actions involved the same defendants, the same Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination, the same requested remedy, and the same administrative record. It therefore found that the efficiency benefits of consolidation outweighed any inconvenience, delay, or prejudice and ordered the actions consolidated.

Intervention

Intervention allows a nonparty with a legally significant interest in a lawsuit to participate in it. Under Rule 24(a), intervention as of right requires a timely motion, a significant protectable interest related to the lawsuit, a possibility that the lawsuit could impair that interest, and a showing that the existing parties may not adequately represent it.

The court found that Saltworks satisfied all four requirements. Saltworks had initiated the jurisdictional-determination process, and the extent of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over the salt ponds was relevant to its exploration of future development options. The court also stated that Cargill maintained ownership interests in the salt ponds that could be directly affected by the litigation and that Saltworks’ representation of those interests would assist in resolving the dispute efficiently.

The court further found that the litigation could impair Saltworks’ interests, that its motion was timely because it was filed before the initial case management conference, and that the government’s broader environmental, administrative, public, and other responsibilities differed from Saltworks’ more specific property-rights and investment interests. Because Saltworks satisfied Rule 24(a), the court did not analyze permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).

Disposition

The court consolidated the California and Baykeeper actions and granted Saltworks’ motions to intervene. It ordered that future filings use the caption for the consolidated action and be filed only in Case No. 19-05941. It made the order the final filing in Case No. 19-05943 and vacated the January 29 hearings on the intervention motions. The order addressed case management and intervention; it did not decide the merits of the challenges to the agency’s determination.