exams glossary requirements notes reading organization news

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Web site optimized for
current versions of
standard browsers:


UC Davis Home | Professor's Home Page | gawsmith@ucdavis.edu

From 1997: First Exam | Second Exam | Third Exam | Fourth Exam | The Final Hypothetical
From 1998: First Exam | Second Exam | Third Exam | Fourth Exam | The Final Hypothetical
From 1999: First Exam | Second Exam | Third Exam | Fourth Exam | The Final Hypothetical
From 2000: First Exam | Second Exam | Third Exam | Fourth Exam | The Final Hypothetical

The LawCrawler | Environmental Law Net | NRDC | EDF | ELI 

Best of the Web, INTERNATIONAL LAW
Best of the Web, ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

 


Final Examination, 2001

INSTRUCTIONS: Read these instructions very carefully. 

Consider the following statement of a hypothetical situation and offer advice to your client, who represents an environmental group, on the legal questions raised by these facts.  Each student in the course must write an individual essay in response to this examination, although you may, if you wish, consult and confer with others in the course before you write your own answer.  My recommendation is that you discuss the problem with others, but that is not a requirement.

You must deal with the facts as they are presented and apply to them the law as it appears in the text and in your class notes.   These resources together constitute your "law library."  There is no need to consult or study any sources other than these, although there is a link provided to the CERES environmental law page, below, because it is such a useful ready reference.  

Write your essay addressed to your client in the form of an advice memorandum on the legal points and authorities you think are important and useful in answering the questions your client has.  There is no need to create or include footnotes.   However, you must refer in the text of your essay to relevant statutes, regulations, and cases, citing them in appropriate abbreviated form in parentheses in the text of your essay.   Overall, the memorandum should be not less than ten to twelve paragraphs long.   The memorandum is to be professionally prepared and presented in hard copy as a high quality word-processed document.  You should keep a back up copy.  I do not want a copy on disk.

The examination must be completed before 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 17th, which is the end of the final examination period published in the Winter Term, 2001, Schedule and Directory.  Any work received after that time, even if only by a minute, will not be graded.  Completed examinations can be brought to my office, the location of which is noted in the course syllabus on the Web.  In accordance with the bonus rule stated in that syllabus, examinations completed by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14th, will earn an automatic "early bird" bonus of ten per cent of the mark assigned for the work.

Quick Reference:  |  Course Home Page Course E-mail Archive  |  CERES Environmental Law  |

Reservoirs in the Delta?

A short time ago, the California State Water Resources Control Board issued an appropriative water right for the Central Delta Project (CDP).  In essence, the project is a proposal to flood low-lying islands ringed with high levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  In wet years, water will be captured and held in the island reservoirs until it is needed by farms and cities, or as environmental release water to flush the Delta channels themselves at critical times and, thus, protect fish and wildlife values.  The CDP is the brainchild of Harvey Breiland and his partner, Suzy Clymo, who have been working on this plan since 1985.

Once an expansive marsh, the Delta was drained and diked and converted more than a hundred years ago into some of the most productive farmland in California.  The reclaimed islands are now generally much lower than the surrounding levees that protect them.  Over the last century, uses of the Delta and the islands have changed.  Occasionally, levees have been breached by winter storms and never repaired.  These islands have become habitat for a rich profusion of wildlife species, including migratory waterfowl, dozens of birds, a great many fish species, and a rich array of wetland vegetation.  The levees, too, provide wildlife habitat.  In addition, the Delta is a major recreation resort for boaters, fishermen, hunters, and a wide range of water sports, attracting tens of thousands of visitors, every year.

The CDP has control over four islands, totaling about 25,000 acres and purchased with money from eastern insurance companies.  Bachman Tract and Vernon Island are intended to serve primarily as waterfowl habitat and wildlife reserves.  Riggs Island and Shaver Slough would be operated as reservoirs.

The plan is supposed to work something like this.  When there is plenty of water in the Delta, at times of Spring runoff and when there are strong Winter storms, Riggs Island and Shaver Slough would be "filled," to a depth of a few feet.  When the water is needed, later in the year, it would be pumped back into the natural channels of the Delta.  The state and federal pumping plants, for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, respectively, could then move the water either west to the Bay Area or south to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California.  The state pumps put water in the California Aqueduct, which goes all the way to the outskirts of San Diego.  The federal pumps put water into the Delta Mendota Canal for the CVP contractors on the eastside of the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere.

Bachman Tract and Vernon Island, accounting for nearly half the land involved, would be developed into a rich mosaic of wetlands, lakes, and riparian forest, "the best duck habitat in the state," Breiland is reported to have said, "once we get through with it."  The project also contemplates the reinforcement and partial reconstruction, as needed, of nearly 30 miles of levees around these two islands.  Pumps would be installed to fill and drain these islands and steps would be taken to stop seepage into neighboring islands from all parts of the project.

There is enormous enthusiasm about the entire CDP in many parts of the state.  Even with all the construction needed, the CDP reservoirs could be operational in as little as two years, a far shorter time than is needed to build a conventional dam.  After the water right was issued, Breiland and Clymo in a joint news conference said that while a lot of concerns had been raised they had "dealt with them all one by one."  "We have Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service happy.  They even signed off on a FONSI in less than two weeks, which is a record for them, and gave us a clean bill of health on federal species law.  The Bachman and Vernon reserves will mitigate for Riggs and Shaver, no questions asked.  The Cal Fed people are ecstatic and hope to either lease or buy the CDP, so they can run it.  The state water people at DWR are smiling.  The Bureau of Reclamation is doing the same thing.  I can't see any outstanding federal issues.  It's just turned out to be good for the resources in the Delta and something that's going to work for all of us."

Not everyone is smiling, however.  Last week, KK Fox, the President of the Delta Waterkeepers, called the CDP a "white elephant" and "a biological nightmare."  Happy Meckstroth, the executive director of the Central Delta Water District, thinks the water should stay in the Delta, where her people need it, instead of being exported to what she repeatedly calls "lalaland."  They have formed the Save the Wetlands Coalition (SWC), and they are in your law office, looking for help.

After you hear what they have to say, advise them.

Fox has two major concerns, the water and the wildlife.  "Look, this is already a seriously impaired estuary, home to numerous endangered species.  If they build this, we'll be in our boats, sampling water and looking for violations.  In the summer, the water in these "reservoirs" is going to be hot.  When it's pumped it's going to take a lot of Delta peat soil with it.  That spells LOD, lower dissolved oxygen, and that will hurt fish, and the wildlife that feed on the fish.  And, of course, the people who come to the Delta to play with the wildife and the fish.  Lose. Lose. Lose.  We should hang on to and improve the wetlands we have now and make sure nobody gets permission to engineer them into something different and worse."

Meckstroth has more specific concerns.  "We have two board members who are avid naturalists and they say the levees, which have been around for a while, are habitat for at least four listed birds: the Kalmanovitz kipperwing, the Reeves red reeder, Fuller's fluted fisher, and the Dranginis dotted duck, which is migratory and spends the winters in Mexico."  

"The other thing that's really concerning us is the location of the pumps for these reservoirs.  The one for Shaver Slough and the one closest to the state and federal pumps is directly across the channel from the largest aerial herbicide and pesticide spraying outfit in the Delta, Flannery's Flying Farmers.  They have been cited twice in the last five years for letting all sorts of chemicals, including DDT before it was banned, into the channel.  They excavated their largest barrel dump three weeks ago and moved tons of earth to a "temporary" site, up against the channel on the south side of the Slough.  They say they're going to truck it to an abandoned quarry and get rid of the threat.  But we went by there, last week, and it's just a huge pile of dirt and some very muddy runoff.  If that stuff ever gets into the pumps and goes to lalaland in the Aqueduct, there'll be a total flaming row."

Advise your clients.

Specifically, write a memorandum in four parts explaining whether, how, and by whom, exactly, you think there may have been violations of federal statutes.  You must identify the statutes you believe have probably been violated.  There are at least four.  Do not consider, however, the pollution control provisions of the Clean Water Act and omit any mention of state law, including CEQA and water rights law.

Each of the four parts of your memorandum must state clearly (i) what law is relevant, (ii) how you think the law appli3es to the facts, above, and (iii) who SWC should sue in federal court to obtain specific remedies, which you must name.

Copyright © Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, 2000, 2001. All federal and state copyrights reserved for all original material presented in this course through any medium, including lecture or print. Graphic design by Teri Lovell, Heidi Antonio, Maureen Coulson and Alix Wandesforde-Smith. Web development also assisted in part by a grant to UC Davis by the Mellon Foundation.
Last updated
March 27, 2003

 


Version 5.5


Version 4.7