Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity · memorandum in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in 5:15−cv−02098−jgb−dtb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN 5:15−cv−02098−JGB−DTB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lisa T. Belenky (CA Bar No. 203225) [email protected]

Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) [email protected]

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 844-7107 Facsimile: (510) 844-7150 Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity Rachel S. Doughty (CA Bar No. 255904) [email protected] GREENFIRE LAW 1202 Oregon Street Berkeley, CA 94702 Telephone: (828) 333-4703 Facsimile: (510) 900-6262 Matt Kenna (CO Bar No. 22159) [email protected] Public Interest Environmental Law 679 E. 2nd Ave., Suite 11B Durango, CO 81301 Telephone: (970) 385-6941 Applicant Pro Hac Vice Douglas P. Carstens (CA Bar No. 193439) [email protected] CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 798-2400 Facsimile: (310) 798-2402

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Story of Stuff and Courage Campaign


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EASTERN DIVISION

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al., Plaintiffs, vs.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 5:15−cv−02098−JGB−DTB MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii!

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1!

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS AND THE STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE APA ....................................................................................................1!

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................3!

I. The Plaintiffs Have Standing ..........................................................................3!II. ! The Forest Service’s Illegal License Allowing Nestle to Occupy the Forest

and to Operate its Water Diversion and Transmission Structures without a Valid Permit Violates FLPMA and the APA ..................................................8!A. ! Forest Service Actions Amount to an Illegal License ............................8!B. ! The Regulations Set Out Specific Requirements for Issuing Special Use

Permits and Renewals that have Not Been Met ....................................9!III.! The Court Should Set Aside the Forest Service’s Illegal License for

Operation of the West Strawberry Diversion Structures. ..............................12!

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................13!


iii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

SUPREME COURT Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) 1, 7

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) 2, 3

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Se. Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009)

13

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) 4

Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) 4

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) 3

Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010) 12

Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) 4

United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 552 4

U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Triplett, 494 U.S. 715 (1990) 4

COURT OF APPEALS Air N. Am. v. Dept. of Transp., 937 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991) 2

Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 486 F.3d 638 (9th Cir.2007) 13

Atl. Richfield Co. v. United States, 774 F.2d 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 2

City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003) 7

Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. Bisson, 231 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) 7


iv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. La. Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, (9th Cir. 1988) 3

Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Pwr. Admin., 477 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2007) 12

Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 861 (9th Cir. 2004) 7

Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance, 545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) 7

s DISTRICT COURT

Mednansky v. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Emples., 2010 WL 3418376 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010) 9

STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 551 2

5 U.S.C. § 558 10, 11

5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 1

5 U.S.C. § 706 1, 12, 13

43 U.S.C. § 1701 7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 2, 3 REGULATIONS 36 C.F.R. § 251.64 10


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION

This case challenges the actions of the Defendants United States Forest

Service et al. (collectively “Forest Service”) in allowing Nestlé Waters North

America, Inc. to divert water from the San Bernardino Nation Forest for its

“Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water” bottling operation without a valid

Special Use Permit (“SUP”) for its pipelines and facilities. The original permit for

this operation, granted to a predecessor corporation, expired decades ago. Riparian

and aquatic habitat in the San Bernardino National Forest is suffering from

extended drought exacerbated by Nesté’s diversion of water diversion through

pipelines and facilities it maintains on the Forest despite the expired permit. Permit

renewal requires the Forest Service to undertake environmental reviews that would

likely result in greater protections for the habitat in the San Bernardino National

Forest than provided under the expired permit.

As will be explained, this action of the Forest Service violates the law, and

the Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity et al. (collectively “Conservation

Groups”) request that the Court set aside and/or enjoin this unlawful action.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS AND THE STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE APA

This is a case brought pursuant to the judicial review provision of the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Under the APA, the

reviewing court “shall … hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and

conclusions found to be … arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law ….” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Agency actions can be challenged if they are “final,” marking the

consummation of the decision-making process. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,

175 (1997). The APA defines “agency action” to “include[ ] the whole or a part of


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof,

or failure to act ….” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). The APA further defines a “license” to

“include[] the whole or a part of an agency permit, certificate, approval,

registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission

….” 5 U.S.C. § 551(8), and “licensing” to “include[] agency process respecting the

grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation,

amendment, modification, or conditioning of a license.” 5 USCS § 551(9). It

defines “sanctions” to “include … the assessment … of fees….” 5 U.S.C. §

551(10).

The Court of Appeals recently explained: “Like many circuits, we interpret

the term [“license” as defined by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 551(8)] expansively based

on our reading that ‘the definition of license in the APA is extremely broad.’” Eno

v. Jewell, 798 F.3d 1245, 1250 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Air N. Amer. v. DOT, 937

F.2d 1427, 1437 (9th Cir. 1991); see Atl. Richfield Co. v. United States, 774 F.2d

1193, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“The APA defines a ‘license’ to include ‘any agency

permit . . . approval . . . or other form of permission ….’ ”) (emphasis in original)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) permits a party to seek summary

judgment on all or part of each claim. “The court shall grant summary judgment if

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. A party seeking summary

judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

“Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary

judgment shall be granted when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, and (2) the moving

party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party

has satisfied his burden, he is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

party fails to designate, by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or

admissions on file, ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’”

Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324-25).

To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party “must do

more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material

facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

(1986). The nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own

affidavits, or by ‘depositions, answer to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’

designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Celotex,

477 U.S. at 324 (citing former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), revised and renumbered as

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) (2010)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in

support of the non-moving party's position is not sufficient.” Triton Energy Corp.

v. Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995)

“In the absence of specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing the

existence of a genuine issue for trial, a properly supported summary judgment

motion will be granted.” Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v.

La. Hydrolec,, 854 F.2d 1538, 1545 (9th Cir. 1988).

ARGUMENT

I. The Plaintiffs Have Standing

In order to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, the

Plaintiff must show that: (1) he has suffered an “injury in fact” due to Defendant’s

allegedly illegal conduct, (2) which can fairly be traced to the challenged conduct

of the Defendants, and (3) which can be redressed by a favorable decision. Mass. v.


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007); Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs, 528

U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000).

Regarding injury in fact, “if that harm in fact affects the recreational or even

the mere esthetic interests of the plaintiff, that will suffice.” Summers v. Earth

Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 494 (2009) (citation omitted). Actual environmental

harm from complained-of activity need not be shown, and “reasonable concerns”

that environmental harm is occurring is enough. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at

183 (citations omitted). Standing only needs to be shown for one plaintiff, and an

organizational plaintiff must show that one of its members suffers injury-in-fact

from the challenged agency action. U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Triplett, 494 U.S. 715,

719 (1990); United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown

Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 552 (1996).

Plaintiffs are injured both by the dewatering of the Forest caused by the

Nestle operation which affects their scientific, educational, and recreational

interests, as well as aesthetically by man-made structures of the operation in the

Forest itself. For instance, Steven Loe, a member of each of the Conservation

Groups, owns a home near Strawberry Creek, and “enjoy[s] hiking in the

Strawberry Creek Watershed.” Loe Declaration ¶¶ 13,16. He is a professional

wildlife and fisheries biologist, and is “very concerned by the taking of water from

public lands during drought and by the allowed degradation of Strawberry Creek

by excessive water diversion.” Id. ¶¶ 7,15. He further states: “This has a substantial

effect on my family’s and friends’, as well as my own, enjoyment of the natural

beauty of the area and our peace of mind regarding the wildlife that depend on the

area. When I see habitat dying and know that it could be avoided with a proper,

updated permit, it makes me sick.” * * * Strawberry Creek[] is very important to

me and my family’s well-being, as well as to our financial investment in our home.

Taking the amount of water Nestle takes severely dries the watershed and makes it


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and the rest of the front country more susceptible to loss to fire, flood, insects, and

other forces which, in turn, diminish the ecological and aesthetic value of the

land.” Id. ¶¶ 15,16.

Declarant Amanda Frye is a member of plaintiffs Story of Stuff and the

Courage Campaign, and a frequent visitor to Strawberry Creek. Frye Declaration

¶¶ 3,4,9,10. In addition to her recreational visits she has visited the water structure

site to observe its impacts, stating that “[a] visit to the Arrowhead well site #7 in

September revealed no visually running natural springs or water flowing from what

I believe the landscape indicates should have been headwater areas into Strawberry

Creek. The amount of water withdrawn from the Strawberry Creek headwater area

appears to be impacting the Strawberry Canyon ecosystem, which harms my

enjoyment of the area.” Id. ¶ 10. She further explains: “Trees that are deprived of

water because of drought or lack of necessary ground water lead can be vulnerable

to fire and disease. The smoke and particulates from forest fires cause major

asthma and health crises for my husband and children leading to missed school and

work as well as increased medical needs.” Id. ¶ 12. She also notes that “[m]any

old pipes from previous horizontal wells are littered near Arrowhead well site #7,

marring the beauty of the landscape and my enjoyment of it.” Id. ¶ 11.

Declarant Ileene Anderson is a member of the Center for Biological

Diversity and regularly visits the San Bernardino National Forest for “observation,

research, aesthetic enjoyment, photography, botanizing, wildlife-watching, family

outings and other recreational, scientific, and educational activities.” Anderson

Declaration ¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. She is concerned with protection of many of the

species that depend on Strawberry Creek and the surrounding Forest lands

“including mountain yellow-legged frogs and other amphibians; unique southern

California endemic fish including Santa Ana speckled dace, and arroyo chub; and

riparian habitat including potential breeding habitat for very rare birds including


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

southwestern willow flycatchers, least Bell’s vireo and others.” Id. ¶ 10, 11. She

explains that she is injured in several ways by the impacts of the water diversion

and the pipeline infrastructure on the resources of the Forest. “When I go to areas

like Strawberry Creek and find the water levels dropping and flows of the creek

greatly decreased, I worry greatly about the persistence of the plants and animals

that rely on these creeks.” Id. ¶ 11. She further states: “When I see water diverted

from streams including Strawberry Creek on public lands during drought, I am

tormented by the fact that the diversions are causing even more harm to these

struggling species and making local extirpations even more likely.” Id.

“Treatments to remove vegetation along the pipeline troubles me, because it is yet

another impact to the public forest lands from this water diversion infrastructure

that degrades the ecological integrity of the forest, and possibly introduces toxic

chemicals into the forest.” Id. ¶ 14. She is “concerned that the pipeline

infrastructure is fragmenting the ecological integrity of the habitat that it traverses

and possibly introducing toxic chemicals to the public lands.” Id. ¶ 16. The Conservation Groups’ members injuries can be fairly traced and are

caused by the illegal license by the Forest Service, because but-for the Forest

Service’s license to allow the water extraction operation and associated pipeline to

remain on the Forest, it would not exist there and Plaintiffs would suffer no injuries

from it. A favorable decision from the Court providing Plaintiffs their requested

relief will redress their injuries. If the illegal license is set aside and the water

extraction ends or the pipeline and other facilities are removed, some of the

Plaintiffs injuries will be cured.

Plaintiffs alleging procedural violations as here “can often establish

redressability with little difficulty, because they need to show only that the relief

requested—that the agency follow the correct procedures—may influence the

agency’s ultimate decision of whether to take or refrain from taking a certain


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

action. This is not a high bar to meet.” Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance, 545

F.3d 1220, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); accord, Ocean Advocates v.

U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 402 F.3d 846, 861 (9th Cir. 2004) (for environmental

plaintiffs asserting a procedural violation, redressability is an “undemanding

burden”). If the illegal license is set aside and diversions cease and/or the

structures are removed, that will plainly redress Plaintiffs’ injuries. If permit re-

issuance proceeds and Forest Service engages in the environmental review

required for permit renewal, that process may result in no new permit being issued

or in a new permit being issued with restrictions that would lessen the

Conservation Groups’ injuries.

Further, absent a statutory citizen suit provision to the contrary, a plaintiff also must demonstrate that his interests are within the “zone of interests” of the statute he seeks to enforce. Bennett, 520 U.S. at 162-166. “The Court has instructed that the ‘zone of interests’ test is to be construed generously, stating that the ‘test is not meant to be especially demanding,’ and that a court should deny standing under the ‘zone of interest’ test only ‘if the plaintiff's interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.’” City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). “FLPMA [the Federal Land Policy and Management Act] requires that ‘the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values.’ 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) [] That policy encompasses [Plaintiffs’] interest in seeking to invalidate an allegedly unlawful [action] that will deprive its members of their aesthetic and recreational interest in the land.” Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. Bisson, 231 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2000). Because the Conservation Groups seek to enforce FLPMA, they meet the


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prudential “zone of interests” test and are persons “aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,” pursuant to § 702 of the APA.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have standing.

II. The Forest Service’s Illegal License Allowing Nestle to Occupy the Forest and to Operate its Water Diversion and Transmission Structures without a Valid Permit Violates FLPMA and the APA

A. Forest Service Actions Amount to an Illegal License The Forest Service is allowing the continued operation of water diversion

and transmission structures (“West Strawberry Diversion Structures”) within the

San Bernardino National Forest without a valid permit. The Forest Service action

is an illegal license that violates FLPMA.

The Forest Service issued the original permit for the West Strawberry

Diversion Structures to Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc. in 1976. SUF 1. The 1976

permit was amended on August 2, 1978, to name new owner: “Arrowhead Mt.

Spring Water Company.” SUF 2. The permit was again amended on June 24, 1981.

SUF 3. At that time, an amendment was made to the termination clause of the

permit stating that the permit, as amended, would “expire and become void on

8/2/1988.” SUF 4. The permit is nontransferable except by payment of a fee and

the permission of the issuing officer or his successor. SUF 6. Upon such

permission, the terms of the permit require issuance of a new permit to the new

owner. SUF 7 As of May 12, 1987, a company called Beatrice Bottled Water

Division, subsidiary of Beatrice Companies, Inc. claimed to be the holder of the

Permit. SUF 8. Later, Perrier Group became the owner of Arrowhead Puritas. SUF

9. At some point, Nestlé claimed to be the holder of the Permit. SUF 10.

The Forest Service has not issued a new or renewed permit for the West

Strawberry Diversion Structures since the amended permit in 1981. SUF 11.

However, the Forest Service continues to accept payment from Nestlé in exchange


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for permission to continue to operate the West Strawberry Diversion Structure.

SUF 12. The Forest Service has on numerous occasions allowed Nestlé and its

predecessors to engage in extensive repair, redevelopment, and reconstruction of

the West Strawberry Diversion Structures since 1988 even without a current

special use permit. SUF 13. In a letter to Nestlé dated April 7, 2015, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel stated that “until the US

Forest Service renders a decision on Nestlé’s permit application, the current

amended permit remains in full force and effect according to its terms, including

those provisions requiring compliance with all relevant State and local laws,

regulations and orders.” SUF 14. Taken together and individually the actions by

the Forest Service of accepting payment and the letter show that the Forest Service

has licensed Nestlé to continue its occupancy of Forest Service lands and to

operate its pumping operation without complying with FLPMA and the APA.

B. The Regulations Set Out Specific Requirements for Issuing Special Use Permits and Renewals that have Not Been Met

The Forest Service’s regulations implementing FLPMA state: “For all

special uses except noncommercial group uses, a special use authorization

terminates when, by its terms, a fixed or agreed-upon condition, event, or time

occurs.” 36 C.F.R. § 251.60(a)(2)(iii). “When a permit's term expires, which is

what happened here, it terminates automatically without agency action.”

Mednansky v. U.S.D.A. Forest Serv. Emples., 2010 WL 3418376 at *8 (S.D. Cal.

Aug. 26, 2010). In accordance with this provision, the permit “expire[d] and

bec[ame] void on 8/2/1988.” SUF 5 (Doughty Decl., p. 16 (Exhibit 4).

The Forest Service regulations provide: “(a) When a special use

authorization provides for renewal, the authorized officer shall renew it where such

renewal is authorized by law . . . (b) [but w]hen a special use authorization does

not provide for renewal, it is discretionary with the authorized officer, upon request


10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from the holder and prior to its expiration, whether or not the authorization shall be

renewed.” 36 C.F.R. §§ 251.64 subds (a), (b). The amended Permit did not provide

for renewal under subsection (a). See SUF 15.

Further, the APA provides when a permit or license may be properly be

considered extended: “When the licensee has made timely and sufficient

application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a

license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the

application has been finally determined by the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 558(c)

(emphasis added). However, as explained above, because the amended permit had

no provision for renewal under 36 C.F.R. § 251.64(a), even if the Permit holder

had submitted a timely and sufficient application (which it did not), the prior

permit could not be considered renewed on that basis under APA section 558(c).

As stated by the United States Department of Agriculture1 Office of General

Counsel (“OGC”) itself in 1998: “The special use permit held by Arrowhead

Mountain Springs that expired in 1988 did not require renewal. The language of

the permit only said that a new permit ‘may be granted’. This is consistent with

Forest Service regulations which state that renewal is discretionary with the

authorized officer unless the permit provides for renewal. 36 C.F.R. § 251 .64(b).”

SUF 16.

As also stated in the 1998 OGC letter:

A legally sufficient application is one in accordance with the agency’s

application requirements. [] The only information submitted by Arrowhead

was a short letter dated May 12, 1987 requesting renewal of the permit and

information regarding forms, documents or instructions. Yet, Forest Service

regulations require extensive information to accompany a special use permit

1 The USDA is the parent cabinet-level agency of the Forest Service.


11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

application. 36 CFR § 251.54(e). Among the necessary items is an

environmental protection plan which was noticeably absent. 36 CFR 251

.54(e)(5).

SUF 17. Accordingly, through its actions, including its annual acceptance of

annual permit fees for the diversion structure and other operations, and the

agency’s letter of April 7, 2015, purporting to keep the expired permit in effect, the

Forest Service has violated FLPMA, its own regulations and the APA because it

has allowed occupancy and use of the Forest and its resources without a valid

permit.

Notably, the Forest Service itself explained why allowing Nestle to rely on

an expired permit indefinitely would be a violation of law that cannot be cured

with a simple ministerial action. As stated in the 1998 OGC letter:

In order to issue a new permit or renew an expired permit, or extend an

existing permit, the Forest Service must comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act

(NFMA), Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), Endangered

Species Act (ESA) as well as other environmental laws. All of the above

laws were in effect in 1979, at the time Arrowhead's last permit was issued.

There is no evidence of legal compliance with any of these laws, either at the

time the original permit was issued or in 1998. To claim [as Nestlé’s

predecessor then was] that §558(c) allows a permit to extend indefinitely by

inaction means that both the permittee and the agency have the ability to

indefinitely avoid the permit procedures required by NEPA, NFMA, ESA

and FLPMA and other laws, as well as deprive the public of notice and an

opportunity to be heard.

SUF 18.


12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For these reasons, the Court should declare the Forest Service’s actions to be

in violation of law, and set aside the illegal license or approval.

III. The Court Should Set Aside the Forest Service’s Illegal License for Operation of the West Strawberry Diversion Structures.

The Court should “set aside” the Forest Service’s illegal license allowing

Nestlé to operate the West Strawberry Diversion Structure. “Under the APA, we

must set aside [agency] action if it was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ ” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v.

Bonneville Pwr. Admin., 477 F.3d 668, 681 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706).

Accordingly, while the Court always retains the authority to consider the equities

in issuing injunctions beyond the setting aside of the challenged action (i.e. beyond

ordering vacatur of the agency action), absent unusual and compelling

circumstances, vacatur of the challenged agency action is the appropriate relief in

an APA suit. Id.; see also Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010).

Although there has been confusion regarding the line between injunctions

and vacatur, the Supreme Court in Monsanto provided some clarity, pointing out

that vacatur of an agency decision will often provide a plaintiff all the relief

necessary, making special injunctive relief beyond vacature unnecessary. Id. at 164

(“[T]he vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA can

be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, [and]

the District Court’s injunction against planting does not have any meaningful

practical effect independent of its vacatur.”). That is the case here, where if the

Court sets aside the license given to Nestlé, it will need to cease diversion

operations unless and until a new permit, with the proper environmental review, is

issued by the Forest Service.

Vacatur or setting aside the illegal license may be a form of “injunctive

relief” as opposed to damages, but it is not an “injunction” in terms of requiring the


13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

familiar four-part injunction standard, because it is mandated by the APA. See

Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 486 F.3d 638, 654

(9th Cir.2007), rev'd on other grounds sub nom, Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Se. Alaska

Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009). (“Under the APA, the normal remedy

for an unlawful agency action is to ‘set aside’ the action. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)”), rev'd

on other grounds sub nom, Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Se. Alaska Conservation Council,

557 U.S. 261 (2009). In other words, a court should “vacate the agency's action

and remand to the agency to act in compliance with its statutory obligations.” Id. at

654-55 (citations omitted).

However, in the event that the Court deems injunctive relief necessary or

appropriate in addition to vacating and setting aside the illegal actions of the Forest

Service, the Conservation Groups request additional briefing to address the

appropriate injunctive relief.

For these reasons, the Court should declare the Forest Service’s action to be

in violation of law and set aside the illegal license.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court should declare that the Forest Service has

violated FLPMA, and vacate and set aside the Forest Service’s illegal license to

permit Nestle to operate the West Strawberry Diversion Structure on the San

Bernardino National Forest.

Respectfully submitted,

November 24, 2015 /s/Lisa T. Belenky

Lisa T. Belenky (CA Bar No. 203225) Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 844-7107


14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Facsimile: (510) 844-7150 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity /s/Rachel Doughty Rachel Doughty (CA Bar No. 255904) Greenfire Law 1202 Oregon Street Berkeley, CA 94702 Telephone: (828) 424-2005 Facsimile: (510) 900-6262 /s/Matt Kenna Matt Kenna (CO Bar No. 22159) Public Interest Environmental Law 679 E. 2nd Ave., Suite 11B Durango, CO 81301 (970) 385-6941 [email protected] Applicant Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs Story of Stuff Project and Courage Campaign Institute

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 5:15−cv−02098−JGB−DTB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



EASTERN DIVISION



) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 5:15−cv−02098−JGB−DTB PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pl.’s SUF No.

Fact Supporting Evidence (Legal Citation)

1 FS issued the original permit for the diversion system to Arrowhead Puritas Water, Inc. in 1976 (“Permit”)

Doughty Decl., pp. 5-9 (Exhibit 1)

2 The Permit was amended on August 2, 1978 to name new owner: “Arrowhead Mt. Spring Water Company.”


3 The Permit was again amended on June 24, 1981

Doughty Decl., p. 16 (Exhibit 4)

4 A June 24, 1981, amendment was made to the termination clause of the Permit stating that the Permit, as amended, would “expire and become void on 8/2/1988.”

Doughty Decl., p. 15 (Exhibit 3), p. 16 (Exhibit 4), p. 27 (Exhibit 12)

5 The Permit expired in 1988. Doughty Decl., p. 16 (Exhibit 4), p. 27 (Exhibit 12), p. 30 (Exhibit 13), p. 32 (Exhibit 14), p. 38 (Exhibit 20) !

6 The Permit is nontransferable except by payment of a fee and the permission of the issuing officer or his successor.

Doughty Decl., p. 11, ¶ 13 (Exhibit 2)

7 Upon such permission, the terms of the Permit require issuance of a new permit to the new owner.

Doughty Decl., p. 11, ¶ 13 (Exhibit 2)

8 As of May 12, 1987, a company called Beatrice Bottled Water Division, subsidiary of Beatrice Companies, Inc. claimed to be the holder of the Permit.


9 Perrier Group became the owner of Arrowhead Puritas.


10 At some point, Nestlé claimed to be the holder of the Permit.


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 The Forest Service has not issued a new or renewed permit for the West Strawberry facility since the amended permit in 1981.


12 The Forest Service continues to accept payment from Nestlé in exchange for permission to continue to operate the West Strawberry Diversion Structure.

Doughty Decl., p. 32 (Exhibit 14), p. 33 (Exhibit 15), p. 34 (Exhibit 16), p. 35 (Exhibit 17), p. 36 (Exhibit 18)

13 The Forest Service has on numerous occasions allowed Nestlé and its predecessors to engage in extensive repair, redevelopment, and reconstruction of the West Strawberry Diversion Structures since expiration of the permit in 1988

Doughty Decl., p. 19 (Exhibit 6),!p.!20!(Exhibit!7),!p.!21!(Exhibit!8),!p.!22!(Exhibit!9),!pp.!23524!(Exhibit!10),!pp.!25526!(Exhibit!11),!p.!37!(Exhibit!19)!

14 In a letter to Nestlé dated April 7, 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel stated that “until the US Forest Service renders a decision on Nestlé’s permit application, the current amended permit remains in full force and effect according to its terms, including those provisions requiring compliance with all relevant State and local laws, regulations and orders.”

Complaint, Dkt. 002, ¶ 47

15 The USDA Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) stated in 1998 that the amended Permit did not provide for automatic renewal.

Doughty Decl., p. 16 (Exhibit 4),!p.!27!(Exhibit!12),!p.!30!(Exhibit!13)!

16 The USDA Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) stated in 1998: “The special use permit held by Arrowhead Mountain Springs that expired in 1988 did not require renewal. The language of the permit only

Doughty Decl., p.!30!(Exhibit!13)


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

said that a new permit ‘may be granted’. This is consistent with Forest Service regulations which state that renewal is discretionary with the authorized officer unless the permit provides for renewal. 36 C.F.R. § 251 .64(b).”

17 The USDA Office of General Counsel stated in 1998: “A legally sufficient application is one in accordance with the agency’s application requirements. [] The only information submitted by Arrowhead was a short letter dated May 12, 1987 requesting renewal of the permit and information regarding forms, documents or instructions. Yet, Forest Service regulations require extensive information to accompany a special use permit application. 36 CFR § 251.54(e). Among the necessary items is an environmental protection plan which was noticeably absent. 36 CFR 251 .54(e)(5).”


18 The USDA Office of General Counsel stated in 1998: “In order to issue a new permit or renew an expired permit, or extend an existing permit, the Forest Service must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as other environmental laws. All of the above laws were in effect in 1979, at the time Arrowhead's



4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

last permit was issued. There is no evidence of legal compliance with any of these laws, either at the time the original permit was issued or in 1998. To claim that §558(c) allows a permit to extend indefinitely by inaction means that both the permittee and the agency have the ability to indefinitely avoid the permit procedures required by NEPA, NFMA, ESA and FLPMA and other laws, as well as deprive the public of notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Respectfully submitted,

November 24, 2015 /s/Rachel Doughty

Rachel Doughty (CA Bar No. 255904) Greenfire Law 1202 Oregon Street Berkeley, CA 94702 Telephone: (828) 424-2005 Facsimile: (510) 900-6262 /s/Matt Kenna Matt Kenna (CO Bar No. 22159) Public Interest Environmental Law 679 E. 2nd Ave., Suite 11B Durango, CO 81301 (970) 385-6941 [email protected] Applicant Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs Story of Stuff Project and Courage Campaign Institute


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

/s/Lisa T. Belenky Lisa T. Belenky (CA Bar No. 203225) Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 844-7107 Facsimile: (510) 844-7150 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity

DECLARATION OF RACHEL S. DOUGHTY 5:15−cv−02098−JGB−DTB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



EASTERN DIVISION



) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 5:15−cv−02098−JGB−DTB DECLARATION OF RACHEL S. DOUGHTY

I, Rachel Doughty, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney for Story of Stuff Project (“SOS”). I have personal

knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration, and if called upon to do so,

could testify competently thereto.

2. Attached hereto are a true and correct copies of records, described

below in subparagraphs to this paragraph 2, each of which was received by SOS on

October 20, 2015, in response to an August 4, 2015, Freedom of Information

Request. Upon the same day of receipt, SOS immediately electronically forwarded

the unaltered complete response (which was provided in electronic format) to my

office.

a. Exhibit 1. U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit No. PL 94-579,

issued July 21, 1976;

1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. Exhibit 2. Amendment to U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit No.

PL 94-579, issued July 21, 1976 (August 2, 1978);

c. Exhibit 3. Letter from Ernest Dierking, District Ranger, San

Bernardino National Forest, to Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc. (May

23, 1981);

d. Exhibit 4. Amendment to U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit No.

PL 94-579, issued July 21, 1976 (June 24, 1981);

e. Exhibit 5. Letter from Frank Schiller, Vice President of

Manufacturing, Beatrice Bottled Water Division, to Richard Stauber,

District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service (May 12, 1987);

f. Exhibit 6. Memorandum to file “Arrowhead-Puritas,” Gary Earney,

Land and Recreation Officer, Forest Service, Cajon Ranger District

(March 12, 1991);

g. Exhibit 7. Letter from Art Ramirez, Arrowhead Drinking Water Co.,

to Gary Earney, Lands Officer, U.S. Forest Service (March 12, 1991);

h. Exhibit 8. Letter from Art Ramirez, Project Engineer, Arrowhead

Mountain Spring Water Co., to Gary Earney, Lands Recreation

Officer, U.S. Forest Service (Feb. 6, 1992)

i. Exhibit 9. “Letter of Permission” from Elliot Graham, District

Ranger, San Bernardino National Forest, to Art Ramirez, Project

Engineer, Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co. (March 10, 1992);

j. Exhibit 10. Letter from Art Ramirez, Project Engineer, Arrowhead

Mountain Spring Water Co., to Katie Clifford, Assistant Lands

Officer, U.S. Forest Service (Feb. 3, 1993);

2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

k. Exhibit 11. “Letter of Authorization” from Elliot Graham, District

Ranger, San Bernardino National Forest, to Art Ramirez, Project

Engineer, Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co. (Feb. 15, 1993);

l. Exhibit 12. Letter from Elliott Graham, District Ranger, San

Bernardino National Forest, to Art Ramirez, Project Engineer Western

Region, Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company (October 3,

1994);

m. Exhibit 13. Letter from Jack Gipsman, Office of General Counsel

U.S. Department of Agriculture to Kevin J. Neese, Hatch and Parent

(October 9, 1998).

n. Exhibit 14. Letter from Gene Zimmerman, Forest Supervisor, San

Bernardino National Forest, to David Palais, Arrowhead Springs

Water (January 9, 2003);

o. Exhibit 15. U.S. Forest Service Bill for Collection to Arrowhead Mt.

Spring Water Co. (February 8, 2005);

p. Exhibit 16. U.S. Forest Service Bill for Collection to Arrowhead Mt.

Spring Water Co. (March 3, 2006);

q. Exhibit 17. U.S. Forest Service Bill for Collection to Arrowhead Mt.

Spring Water Co. (May 1, 2007);

r. Exhibit 18. U.S. Forest Service Bill for Collection to Arrowhead Mt.

Spring Water Co. (covering January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012);

(November 20, 2007)

s. Exhibit 19. Letter from Gabe Garcia, District Ranger, Front Country

Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, to John Nolan,

Arrowhead Water (Mar. 1, 2010); and

3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

t. Exhibit 20. Authorization Expiration Report, Search Results from

U.S. Forest Service Authorizations Database (October 7, 2015).

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, that

the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of November, 2015.

/s/Rachel Doughty Rachel Doughty (CA Bar No. 255904)

4

.. . .

/' Unit6d . I)epartment of Agricultu ) • l".-!"est g.,rvice

o. Record no. (1.2) ---r-c.--=-Fo.:..,-,,-, ("'5.""'6:"') ---

70 05 12 SPECIAL USE PERMIT . iskict .8) o. Usernumber{9-12) f. Kind of use (13-15

Act of June 4, 1897 This permit is revocable and nontransferable

(Ref. FSM 2710)

53 4243 g. State (16.17) h. County (18-20)

(l6 071

Permission is hereby granted to Arrowhead Puritas Waters. · Inc.: of P.O. Box 2293 Terminal Annex. Los Angeles. Ga11fornil 90051 hereinafter called the permittee, to use subject to the conditions set out below, the fo or improvements:

A ri9ht-of-way not to exceed five (5) feet in width and IPProx in length across portfons of National FOrest land. fn Sectfon • T .111 •• R.3W •• IIE'-. of Section 12. T .1N •• R.4W •• SIs of Section 3 ' . T .211 •• .•• SBBIN . ' as shown more particularly on the map entitled -Arrowhead !irftas Waten, Inc".-(916) Syst. and Supply. dated June 1976 by A.II. Hess a · llllde· I part hereof. .,

.,

rq, -;;,,,Y ? r "

This permit covers __ 2_"_5 ____ acres and/or nfiles and is issued for the purpose \:'f:

maintainfng thereon water tranSllfSsion 1t • necessary service trails to maintain pipelines and water collectfon tJ/imels. wells and sprfng IiIOxes.

1. Construction or occupancy and e under this permit shall begin within months, and construction, if any, shall be comple d within months, from .the date of the permit. This.: use shall be actually exercised at east 365 days each year; unless otherwise authorized " in writing. .' .

it is accepted subject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions 18 to attached hereto and made a part of this permit.

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER DATE Waters. Inc.

. ITLE VicE 7'", -$' ! t?. ,,-f TITLE DATE

OFFICER Forest Supervisor 7 (CONTINUED ON REVERSE) 2700- 4 (7/71)

5

Exhibit 1

4. Development plans; ,IS; construction. or e() tion of improvements; 9,f ,:"vision, of layout or constructi ) lans for this area must be approved ir. lance and in writing .I>y ihe forest supervisor. Trees or shrubbery on the permitted area may be remOved or destroyed only after the forest officer in charge has approved. and has marked or otherwise designated that which may be removed or destroyed. Timber cut or destroyed will be paid for by the permittee as follows: Merchantable timber at appraised value; young-growth timber below merchantable size at current damage appraisal value; provided that the Forest Service reserves the right to dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the pel'-mittee at no stumpage cost to the permittee. Trees. shrubs. and other plants may be planted in such manner and in such places about the premises as may be approved by the forest officer in charge.

5. The permittee shall maintain the improvements and premises to standards of repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitai10n, and safety acceptable to the forest officer in charge.

6. This permit to all valid claims. 7. The permittee, in exercising the privileges granted by this permit, shall comply with the regulations

of the Department of Agriculture and all Federal, State, county, and municipal laws, ordinances, or regula-tions which are applicable to the area or operations covered by this permit.

8. The permittee shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent and suppress forest fires . No ma-terial shall be disposed of by burning in' open fires during the closed season established by law or regula-tion without a written permit from the forest officer in charge or his authorized agent.

9, The permittee shall exercise diligence in protecting from damage the land and property of the United States covered by and used in connection with this permit, and shall pay the United States for any damage resulting from negligence or from the violation of the terms of this permit or 'of any law or regulation appli-cable to the National Forests by the permittee, or by any agents or employees of the permittee acting within the scope of their agency or employment.

"

10, The permittee shall fully repair all damage, other than ordinary wear and tear, to national forest roads and trails caused by the permittee in the exercise of the pri vilege granted by this permit.

"

11. No Member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any-benefit that may arise' herefrom unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit.

12. Upon abandonment, termination, revocation, or cancellation of this permit, the permittee shall remove within a reasonable time all .structures and improvements exc,(p.! owned by the_United States, and shall restore the site, unless otherwise ' agreed upon in writing' or in this permit. If the permittee fails to remove all such structures or improvements within a reasonable 'Pl'riod, they shall become the property of the United States, but that will not relieve the permittee of liability for the cost of their removal and restoration of the site.

13, This permit is not transferable. If the permittee through sale or transfer, or through enforcement of contract, foreclosure, tax sale, or other valid legal proceeqing shall cease to be the owner of the physical improvements other than those owned by the United. States situated on the land described in this permit and is unable to furnish adequate proof of ability to redeem or otherwise reestablish title to said improvements, this permit shall be subject to cancellation. But if tbe person to whom title to said improvements shall have been transferred in either manner provided is qualified as a permittee and is willing that his future occupancy of the premises shall be subject to such new. con'tlitions and stipulations as existing or prospective circumstances may warrant, his continued occupancy of the premises may be authorized by permit to him if, in the opinion of the issuing' officer or his successor, issuance of a permit i" desirable and in the public interest.

14. In case of change of address, the permittee shall immediately notify the forest supervisor.

15. The temporary use and occupancy of the premises and improvements herein described may be sublet by the permittee to third parties only with the prior written approval of the forest supervisor but the per-mittee.shall continue to be respoR'sible (or compliancE! with all conditions of this permit by persons to whom such premises may be sublei.

16. This permit may he terminated upon breach of any of the conditions herein or at the discretion of the regional forester or the Chief, Forest Service.

17, In the event of any conflict between any of the preceding printedclauses or any provi sions thereof and any of the following clauses or any provisions thereof, the following clauses will control.

GPO 914-673

6

Exhibit 1

o

18. Serv1ce Charge

o Page 3 Arrowhead Pur1tas. Inc. System. Supply (916)

A serv1ce charge 1n add1t10n to the regular fees shall be made for fa11ure to meet the fee payment due date or any of the dates specif1ed for submission of statements required for fee calculation. The service charge shall be one (1.0) percent per month of the fee from the date statement and fees were due or $15, whichever is greater. If a due date falls on a nonworkday. the service charge will not apply until the end of the next workday. .

Service Fee Issuance of New Permit A service fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) will be charged for issuance of a new permit as a result of any change of ownership.

19. Nondiscrimination. Services During the performance of this permit. the permittee agrees: a. In connection with the performance of work under this permit,

including construction, m,intenance. and operation of the facility. the permittee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion. sex, or natfonal origin.

b. The permfttee and his employees shall not discrfminate by segregation or otherwise against any person on the basfs of race. color. religion. sex, or national origin by curtailing or refusing to furnish accommodations. facilities, servtces, or use privileges offered to the public generally. • ,!

c. The! 'permittee shall include and require compHance with the above' nondfscriminationpprov1sions in any subcontract made with respect -'. to the operations under this permit. ' ..•

d. Signs setting forth this pol fey of nondiscrimination to be furnished by the Forest Service will be conspicuously displayed at the public entrance to the premises. and at other exterior or interior locatfons as directed by the ,Forest Servfce.

20. Indemnfffcatfon of United States The permittee shall indemnify the United States against any liability for damage to life or property arising from the occupancy or use of National Forest lands under this permit.

. (.,

7

Exhibit 1

o

21. Esthetics

Page 4 Arrowhead Puritas, Inc. System, Supply (916)

The permittee shall protect the scenic esthetic values of the area under this permit, and the adjacent land, as far as possible with the authorized use, during construction, operation, and maintenance of the improvements.

22. Erosion Control The permittee shall be responsible for the prevention and control of said erosion and gullying caused by permittee either directly or indirectly, on the area covered by this permit and lands adjacent thereto, and shall provide 'preVentive measures as required by the Forest Service. '

23. Permit Termination Unless sooner terminated or revoked by the Forest Service in accordance with the provisions of the permit, this permit shall, subject to annual revalidation by the Forest Service and payment of fees by the permittee. expire and become void on December 31, 1986, but a new permit to occupy and use the same National Forest land may be granted provided the permittee will comply with the then existing laws and regulations governing the occupancy and use of National Forest lands and shall have notified the Forest Supervisor not less than one year prior to said date that such new permit is desired.

24. Rights Reserved The land herein described is subject to certain rights reserved by or outstanding in ;parties other than the United States, and nothing herein shall abridge said rights or authorize prevention or obstruction of the reasonable exercise thereof.

25. Area Access The permittee agrees to permit the free and unrestricted access to and upon the premises at all times for all lawful and proper purposes not inconsistent with the intent of the permit or with the reasonable exercise and enjoyment by the permittee of the privileges thereof.

26. Water Rights This permit confers no right to the use of water by the permittee.

8

Exhibit 1

o

27. Risk and Hazards

o Page 5 Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc. System, Supply (916)

Avalanches. rising waters. high winds. falling limbs or trees. and other hazards are natural phenomena in the forest that present rfsks to the permittee's property which the permittee assumes. The permittee has the responsibility of inspecting his site. lot. rfght-of-way and immediate adjoining area for dangerous trees. hanging limbs and other evidence of hazardous conditions and. after securing permission from the Forest Service, of removing such hazards.

28. Superseded Permit This permit supersedes a special-use permit designated: Arrowhead and Puritas Inc. System. Supply 11-29-60 issued by D.M. Tucker for D.R. 8auer, Forest Supervisor

9

Exhibit 1

! i I ,

.... " ""'" J "

United St •••• pepen ..... 01 AsrlcultUH " , • • RecoN N . (1·2) R ...... t4) c . For..t (U) . • "ON.t Be ... lc.

70 tz --SPECIAL -USE PERMIT ,0. vl ... let v·., .0 U .. , nu", •• , (9-12) f. KI ..... f ••• (13-15)

Act of 94-579) 53 7285 -- ----This permit i. Nvocabt. end nonttauferabl. , . Stat. (16.17) h. C ••• " (18·20) k. Cord n • • (21)

(R.f. FSM 2110) 06 071 1 -- -

Permission hereby granted Pu"tas "am ,Inc, Mf . CcnyfJ./n . .. (,1>1 E.f'o-f ... ",.o Yn...&...

of , r'YlC»'>fe PO-1.Jc... CA 't11:>4 hereinafter called the pennittee, to use subject to the conditions set Ollt below, the followl described lands or improvements: , , .

A right-of-way not to exceed five (5) feet in width and approicimately 23.020 feet in length across portions of Nationa' Forest Jand in Section 6. nN. R3W. '1/4 of Sectio!, 12 • . SE SE 1/4. Seet1o.n,.t. T1N. R4!r1. S 1/2 of Sect19n 30 'and Section 31. T2N. R3W.' as sliown more par-ticularly on the map entitled -Arrowhead Pur1tas waters. Inc,. (916). System and Supply,» dated June 1976 by' A, W, Hes's and revisl!d 30 'Novanber 1977 by Gene Tal1aferro and made . a part I

,

This permit covers_..!2,.,,"'7 ____ acres and/or 4,36 miles and is issued for the purpose of:

, ,

maintaining thereon water transmission neces'ary service trails to 'm1intain pipelines ind water collection tunnels. horizontal 'wells, and spring boxes.

, 10" "

l • -ill , '

J. Construction or occupancy and use under this permit shall begin within --- months, and ('onslructinn, if any, shall be completed 't'4' months, from, the date of the permit. This

shall be actually exercised at least .. Vii days eac,h year, unless otherwise authorized in writing.

2. In consideration for this use, the permittee shall pay to the Forest Service, U.S. Departmen't or Agriculture, the sum hundred twentv Dollars(S . 220.00' ) for the period from .. ,JIJll!arv 1. 191i..., to Decanber 31. , 19.1i..-, and thereafter annu all v on January 1 ,

Dollars' (S 220.00 ) : l'rol'idl'd, hilll'I""l'r, Charges for this use may be made or I"!adjusted whenever necessary to place the "har!l('s on 1\ basis I'omm .. nsurate with the value of use authorized by this pennit .

.I. ,,<'I'mil aCffl!t<:A.llubject to the conditions set forth herein, and to conditions _--,-1",,8_-,-to 28 ftlclul!1M Exhibdt'tllclJlM hereto a d made a part of this permit .. .. .. n

"AWE OF AUTHORIZED O,'ICER DATE

PERMITTEe 'f. ,. Arrowhead Purf tas Wa ters. In VI(y.> ?".;,de",f

TITLE ' OAT-! ISSUING el-z.!1% OFFICER rT •

(CONTINUED ON R£VBRSB) 2700· 4 171111 ;·t_: '- .... _ f .. :..;: ' Sill

10

Exhibit 2

- ';. r " 4. Dpvplopn,,,nt plans; layo . construction, reconstruction, or of imp.:ovemeata; ./

of la"oul or construction plans for this a .... a must h«; approved in advance and in writing by the [orpst slIpprvisor. T .... es or shrubb!'rY on tht' pt'rmilled area ·may b" removed or destroyed only aCter the forpst offic"r in'char!:" has approvpd, and has markE'd Or otherwise designated that which may:be rE'moved or dpstro\·pd. Timh .. r cut or rlestroyed will bE' paid for by t.hE' follo";s: Merchl!!lt!hle. timper at approi spd valli,,; young-growth timber below mE'rchantable size at current damage appraisal value; provided that tilt' Forpst S"rvice r"st'rvt's tht' right to dispose of the merchantable timber to others than the pe .... millE''' at no stumpage cost to the permitteE'. Trees, shrubs, and other plants may be planted in such manner and in such places about the premises as may be aPproved by the forest officer in charl!l!. . - - , -' ... ...

5. The permillee shall maintain the and to standards of repair, orderliness, npatness, sanitation , and safety acceptable to 'tlie iii :c lili'fge. .

6. ,This permit is subject ,to all valid ,clai.ms .. - .. .. "- ' r , .. _ "," ... . .. . __ .... _ __ • '. 7. Thp permittee, in exercising the privileges granted by this permit ; -shall comply with the regulations

of the Departmpnt of Agriculture and all Fed""al, State, county, and munic\pallaws, ordinaqces, or regula. tions which ,are applicable to the area or ,operations covered by this permit. - .

' . ' _" ' . r. • . f B. Thp pprmlttpe shall take all reasonable precautIOns 10 prevent anci suppress forest fires. No ma-terial shall be disposed of by burning in open fires during established hy law or regula-tion without a written Rermit from thE' officer in charge or his' authorized agent. " .' , i r, ;) .t.. \,i '1-

9. Thp pP",!illee .shl'll .ellercise diJigel)ce jn protecting .from dainage the land and property Of the United Statps ('ovPred hy and used in connectJon this permi t, and shall pay the United State's for any damage rpsulting [rom negligence or from the violation of the terms of this permit or of any law or re!tUlation appli-cahle In the National Forests by the permittee, or by any agents of employees or the permittee acting within the scope of their agency or employment.

10. Th .. Permittee shall fully repair all damage. other than ordinary wear and tpar, to national forest roads and trails causeil by the permittee in the eXE'rcise on he privil';ge granted by this permit. ' .

11. No Member of or Delegate to Congress 0" sha!l ·be admitted. to any share or part of this or to any 'benefit .that m,,:y arise herefrom unless it is made with corporation for its gpnpral bE'Df .. fu. . 'j

12. l !pon abandonm .. nt, termination , revocation . or cancellation of this permit, the permittee shall removE' within a reasonable time all structures and improvements except those owned by the United States, and shall restore the site , unless otherwise agreed upon in writing or in this permit. If the permittee fails to r"move all such structures or improvements within a reasonable period. they shall bE'come the property of the United States. but that will not relieve the permittee of liability for the cost of their removal and restoration of the site. . . j II .\

13, This permit is not transCerable. If the permil!ee through voluntary s!,le or transfer, or through pnforc .. m .. nt of contract. foreclosure, tax sale; 'or other valid proceeding shall cease 'to be the owner of th .. physical improvements other than those owned by th" United States situated on the land described in this ppm,it and is unable to furnish adequate proof of ability 'to redeem or otherwise rees.tablish title to said improvements, this permit shall be subject -to cancellation .. !:Iut if the person to whom title to said improvpmpnts shall have been transferred in either manner provided is qualified as a permittee and is willin!,: that his future occupancy of the premises shall be subject'to such new conditions and stipulations as existing or prospective circumstance.s may ,,(alTant, his continued occupancy or the premises may be authorized by permit to him if. in the opinion of tbeissuing officer or his successor, issuance of a penn it is desirable and in the public interest ,

14. In cas .. of chan!:e of address. the permittee shall immediately notify the forest supervisor . . 15. Till' t .. mporary use and oc<;upancy of the premises and improvements herein described may be sublet

hy 11", !,p!mitt"p to third parties only with the prior written approval of the forest supervisor but the pe .... mitt",· ('ontinue to be responsible for compliance with all conditions of this permit by persons to wh{"lm glwh preomisf"s may bp suhlet . ..

lb. pprmit may bE' tprminated upon breach of any of the conditions herein or at the disc"'tion of the n'g-innul or thp ChiC'f. Forest Service.

17 . 111 1 h,' "\'l'llt of an)' <,onnict between any of the preceding printedclauses or any provision.s thereof and allY nf tl,.. fnllowing dOUBt's or any provisions thereof, the following clauses will

11

Exhibit 2

• r

/

I.

, j

o o Page 3

Puri tas, Inc. System, Supply (916)

18. Service Charge

19.

A service charge in addition to the regular fees shall be made f or failure to meet the fee payment due date or any of the dates spec-ified for submission of statements required for fee calculation . The service charge shall be one (1. 0) percent per month of the fee from the date statement and fees were due or $15, whichever is greater. If a due date falls on a nonworkday, the service charge will not apply until the end of the next workday.

Service Fee for Issuance of New Permit

A service fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) will be charged for issuance of a new permit as a result of any change of m,met'ship.

Nondiscrimination, Services

During the performance of this permit, the permittee agrees ,

a. In connection with the performance of work under this permit , including construction, maintenance, and operation of the fa c ility , the permittee shall not disc.riminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

b. The permittee and his employees shall not discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin br curtailing or refusing to furnish accommodations, facilities, servic€s, or use privileges offered to the public generally.

c. The permittee shall include and require compliance with the above nondiscrimination prOVisions in any subcontract made with respect to the operations under this permit.

d. Signs setting forth this policy of nondiscrimination to be furnished by the Forest Service will he conspicuously displayed at the public entrance to the premises, and at other exterior or interior locations as directed by the Forest Service.

20. Indemnification of United States

The permittee shall indemnify the United States against any liability for damage to life or property arising from the occupancy or use of National Forest lands under this permit .

•

12

Exhibit 2

r··... 4,·.

21.

/' 22.

24.

25.

26.

o r, ), .

Page 4 Arrowhead Puritas. Inc. System, Supp1v , (916)

Esthetics

The permittee shall protect the scenic esthetic values of the area under this permit, and the adjacent land, as far as possible with the authorized use, during construction, operation, and maintenance of the improvements.

Erosion Control

The permittee shall be responsible for the prevention and control of soil erosion and gullying caused by permittee either directly or indirectly, on the area covered by this permit and lands adja-cent thereto, and shall provide preventive measures as required by the Forest Service.

Permit Termination

Unless sooner terminated or revoked in accordance with the visions of the"'permit, this permit shall expire and e void upon issuance of a new authorization or one er publication of regulations by the Secretary of A ure under the provisions of Title V, P. L. 94-579, whic comes first, but a new authorization to occu use the same National Forest land will be issued ed the permittee will comply with the then-existi es and regulations governing the occupancy and use

ational Forest lands.

Rights Reserved

The land herein described is subject to certain rights res erved by or outstanding in parties other than the United States, and nothing herein shall abridge said rights or authorize prevention or ob-struction of the reasonable exercise thereof.

Area Access

The permittee agrees to permit the free and unrestricted access to and upon the premises at all times for all lawful and proper

' purposes not inconsistent with the intent of the permit or with the reasonable exercise and enjoyment by the permittee of the privileges thereof.

Water Rights

This permit confers no right to the use of water by the permittee.

•

13

Exhibit 2

-" .. 0 ("' , .

Page 5 Arrowhead Puri,tas, Tnc. Sys tem, Supply (916)

27. Risk and Hazards

Avalanches, rising waters, high winds, falling limbs or trees, and other hazards are 'natural phenomena in the forest that present risks to the permittee's, property which the permittee assumes. The permittee has the responsibility of inspecting his site, lot, right-of-way and immediate adjoining area for dangerous trees, hanging limbs and other evidence of hazardous conditions and, after securing permission from the Forest Service, of removing such hazards.

28. Superseded Permit

This permit supersedes a special-use permit designated:

Arrowhead and Puritas Inc. System, Supply 7/21/76 issued by Doug MacWilliams Forest Supervisor

•

14

Exhibit 2

I / o ')

UNITBD S'l'A'l'BS DBPARrMBN'l' OF AGRICOIIrURB U.S. Forest Service

Lytle Creek R.S. Ster Box 100 Fontana, CA 92335

Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc. P.O. Box 2293 Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA 90051

Gentlemen.

May 23, 1981 2720 Systea, Supply (916), 8/2/78

By virtue of the termination clause in your present Special Use Permit, your permit will expire on July 7, 1981. Therefore, we have to amend your permit termination clause as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The new termination date will be ten years fro .. ths date of issue of your present permit.

Please read ths encloBed amendment, sign and date all three copies, and then return all three copies in the enclosed envelope to us. After it is approved by the Forest Supervisor, we will return the original to you.

If you have any questions, please call Gene Taliaferro or Craig Simonsen at (714) 887-2576.

Since

T. DmlUCING J Ranger

!ncl.

15

Exhibit 3

, • < . " ,->"

Uniled" tec ... Oeput •• nl 01 A.ric.lt .. fI ,." •• , s""",,. .. .... (1.2) •. R."o,., :!) c. F.,.,. Cu) Act of Oct. 21 .. 1976 (PI. 94-579) 70 Q2 --AME

FOR .. 0 ....... (7 .. ) •• U.., ..,.kr ''''12) I. .f tI,. ()l-U)

SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7285 916 Ref: FW 2714 ---- ---

THIS AMENDME.NT IS ATTACHED TO AND MADII A "ART t· $ .... (16·17) h. C .. o" (18·:20) k. C ... 0 •• (21) OF THE QlI IlZl 1 DTE .... IXl ANNUAL PE .... 'T -F' System, Supply (916) d or _________________________________ issue to ___ __

UUND 0" ...... T) / / Arrowhead Furitas Waters, Inc. 8 2 1978 on __ __ _ IH ..... 0'" COATI: Oil" P .... 'TJ

which is hereby amended as followa; change clauae 2.3 Permit Termination to read as follows:

"Unless sooner terminated or revoked by the Forest Service in accordance with the of the permit, this permit shall, subject to annual revalidation by the

Forest Service and payment of fees by the permittee, expire and become void on 8/2/1988 , but a new permit to occupy and use the same National Forest land<

may be granted provided the permittee will comply with ' the then existing laws and governing the occupancy and use of National Forest lands and shall

have notified the Forest Supervisor not leas than 1 year prior to said date thai new permit is desired."

. ' ,.t ' •• t .' -,

This Amendment is accepted subject to the conditiona set forth herein. and to conditions --------- to --------------- attached hereto and made 8 part of this Amendment.

PERMITTEE

ISSUING OFFICER

NAME 0, PERMITTEE

COpy FOIl DISTRICT RANGER

s TITLE 1// (. £ PIE' S i!lAJT

TITLE

...

16

Exhibit 4

.. . , ,

Flink H. SelllIl .. VIce """""'" Mon!.IacIuring ,to '

. '

,1 .....

. , ... " .... .. .

• ' I, """-

.. .. l ( .• 10 , ',·'0 1, f)

I t lS --.... -_ .. -.... ... .... .

--' Ai\ --- .. ;·.f1In:'-l<Ri..c.hArd Stauber - ... . Q.ts.tJ: i-e-t-R a n g e r

1'824 Sooth Commercenter

if

Hay 12, 1987

San Bernardino, CA 92408-3430 Dear Mr. Stauber:

... .. •• e LEe -I::;; 15 'C7

0 ..... "'" ... -

s ER • PI .. uorroo .....

PlU

Our company, under User Permit No.7285, has been transporting water via a pipeline Federal Forest Land for the past

he latest 10 ear permit will expire in August, 1988 t is ur inten ion, wit 1 , restry

Service to' renew this and send to documents, forms and instructions needed

my attention any for this purpose.

Your help will be appreciated.

FH S: i w

cc E. L. W. R. 8. D. A. J.

Bishop Dahlman Lindop Peever

Very truly yours,

c--:- { ('< I ',.or J lUlt. ,:,,,;, R ..

,.29'87

. , ..... _-of)

/VIO -Hr. Stauber: Original inadvertently sent through

mail sources rather than Registered intended.

regular -Ma'i-iI as = . ._ ... _-, ..... . 'j'

... . -, ....... A.A.

1ST elK , ...... _-." _f' ... "",

17

Exhibit 5

ARROWHEAD PURITAS WATERS. INC.

ARROWHEAD TWO CUPANIA CIRCLE. MONTt 'ri K. . 2\l!/728-6636 POST OFFICE BOX 2293 TERMINr.fANNEX. ANGELES. 90051

May 5, 1987

Mr. J. L. Pecsi Department of Fish and Game State of California P.O. Box 3345 Riverside, California 92509

Dear Mr. Pecsi:

,- - .-.. __ -4

')

, )

I.

----.-.--.... .. .....

. '\ .1\. -, ., r CUI -, -..... This is confirming our phone conversation of last week regarding our permit number

Our material supplier has informed us that the pipe we need to do this job has been delayed and will not be ' delivered until approximately June 1, 1987. Since this is the date our permit expires, we will need an extension of this permit.

In our conversation last week you indicated that this would not be a problem and that you would extend our permit two months to August 1, 1987.

I want to thank you for your cooperation in this matter and I will keep you apprised of any further changes or delays in our plans.

Sincerely

/P(

RBL/pjd

cc: G. A. Earney U. S. Forest Service

Official Water of the 1984 Olympics

-_. 18

Exhibit 5

"" 0 UNITED STATES DEPARnIENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

Reply To: 2720 - Special Uses

Cajon R.D.

Subject: 2720-913 (FLUR 7285, 8-2-78), Arrowhead-Puritas

To: Files

3-12-91

I met this afternoon with Arthur Ramirez (Perrier Group, new owners of A-P) , Roger Bravo (Ron Lansing's replacement within A-P itself) and Maintenance Foreman Dick Henderson.

We reviewed a ' 3-12-91 written request to replace about 2500' of damaged and deteriorated pipe, per the map attached to that letter, in two separate areas designated as Area 1 and Area 2.

Area 2 is on private land. Our only concerns are three-fold: 1} that the integrity of the Forest Road (lN24 , Strawberry Truck Trail) be maintained, relative to vertical and horizontal alignment, and to drainage patterns, structures and rolling dips; 2} that Southern California Gas Co. be contacted for involvement in the planning and construction due to the line they have located in the 1N24 roadbed; and 3} that any welding etc. be done under the proper permits, which should be obtained from P-36.

Area 1 is on Forest land . The pipe will be airlifted in by helicopter, and dropped off at points along the 500' of needed work in Area 1. No vegetation will be cut or cleared, the new pipe will be joined by mechanical means as opposed to welding, and all old materials will be removed within reason. Crews will be dropped off by helicopter in the small meadow immediately north of springs 10, 11 & 12 in Area 1. No helispots etc. will be cleared or established. All litter and other debris will be removed upon completion of construction. A-P will notify me of the beginning and ending dates of construction.

This activity is of a very low impact, and is covered under the maintenance provisions of A-P's Special Use Permit .

Art Ramirez Roger Bravo

19

Exhibit 6

· ,

TO:

FROH:

o

Gary EarneY,Lands Officer United States Forest Service

Art Ramirez

c AffOwhead illinking Water Co. 601 East Pollel'O Glaode Onve Monterey Park. California 91754 213 B88 8000

DATE : 3 --12-91

SUBJECT: WATER LINE REPLACEMENT, ARROWHEAD SPRINGS

The following outlines the proposed scope of work for replacing approximately 2500 lin.ft. of damaged and deteriorated pipe lines immediately above Strawberry Creek and below Coldwater Canyon. See attached map.

AREA NO.1

Replace approximately 500 lin.ft. of damaged 3 inch pipe line ,above Strawberry Creek, between main pipe line trunk and spring sites 10, 11 and 12.

This line is currently bypassed with a tempora r y fire hose line.

AREA NO.2

Replace two existing rust encrusted pipe lines approx-imately 2000 lin ft., with one 4 inch pipe line, starting at the base of Coldwater Canyon and running parallel above Coldwater Creek.

This new line will follow the same path o f the existing pipe lines within the Campus Cru s ade's private land.

cc: Roger Bravo Dick Henderson Tom BcDaniel I-Ii ke Lynn

20

Exhibit 7

21

Exhibit 8

22

Exhibit 9

23

Exhibit 10

24

Exhibit 10

25

Exhibit 11

26

Exhibit 11

27

Exhibit 12

28

Exhibit 12

29

Exhibit 13

30

Exhibit 13

31

Exhibit 13

32

Exhibit 14

33

Exhibit 15

34

Exhibit 16

35

Exhibit 17

36

Exhibit 18

37

Exhibit 19

SPUR051L Server 10/07/2015

Authorization Expiration Report

Page 1 of 7

Contact NameContact ID Auth IDAuth

StatusExpiration

Date

SGD4219

SGD6831SGD6831SGD6831MCMILLAN FARM MANAGEMENTSGD6831LK HEMET MUNI WATERDIST.LK HEMET MUNI WATERDIST.SGD6831BBD6645

SMITH, ROBERTTRAILS END MUTUAL WATER COMCMILLAN, INCARW4010

ARW4027ARW4033BBD6818JOHNSON, ROSALIE C.CAJ6518CAJ6540CAJ6642CAJ7089CAJ7092OLIVERA, ANTONIOCAJ7285

CAJ7470CAJ7619CAJ7879CAJ7899HOCKADAYCAJ4011JONES, JEFF & RAQUELCAJ4011CAJ3067CAJ3120

ISSUED

ISSUEDISSUEDISSUED

CLOSED

ISSUEDISSUED

CLOSED

ISSUEDISSUED

ISSUEDCLOSED

CLOSEDISSUED

ISSUEDISSUEDISSUED

CLOSEDISSUED

CLOSEDCLOSEDISSUED

CLOSEDISSUEDISSUED

CLOSEDISSUEDISSUEDISSUEDISSUED

CLOSEDISSUEDISSUEDISSUEDISSUED

07/31/1980

12/31/2010

12/31/2015

12/31/2000

12/31/201012/01/1994

12/31/199912/01/2001

12/31/200308/31/199012/01/1993

12/31/200512/01/199412/31/200612/31/200512/31/200512/31/200612/31/1988

12/31/200612/31/199412/31/200612/01/199301/01/201810/01/201207/01/202012/31/201312/01/199412/01/1986

BEAR VALLEY MUTUAL WATER COMPANYBANNING WATER COMPANYBANNING WATER COMPANYBANNING WATER COMPANYMcMillan Farm Management

BANNING WATER COMPANYLK HEMET MUNICIPAL WTR. DIST.

LK HEMET MUNICIPAL WTR. DIST.

BANNING WATER COMPANYLAKEVIEW TRACT WATER IMPROV ASSMITH, ROBERT AND TAMARATRAILS END MUTUAL WATER CO.

MCMILLIAN FARMS INCCRESTLINE VILLAGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICTGREEN VALLEY MUTUAL WATER CO.ARROWHEAD VILLAS MUTUAL SERV.CHIARAMONTE, SAMJohnson, Rosalie ClydeGETCHELL, NORMAN Y. & CAROLYNQUOSS, PAUL & VERLA L.DONEGAN, JOHN J. & NORMA L.SYKES, JOE M. & LINDAW. SUNDMACHER GRUENHAGENOlivera, Antonio & LygiaARROWHEAD MT. SPRING WATER CO.JAMES HARVEY, EXBURLINGGAME, R. C.ELLIOT, ROGERMAZALIC, JAMES AND IDAHockaday, JohnFONTANA UNION WATER COMPANYJones, Jeff & RaquelFONTANA UNION WATER COMPANYCOMPASSION CRUSADE, INC.CAMPUS CRUSADE FOR CHRIST INTL

SGD408501

SGD683101SGD683102SGD683103SJD414401

SGD683105SJD4019A

SJD401901

SGD683104BBD664501

SJD6942ASJD403601

SJD424301ARW401001

ARW402701ARW403301BBD681801CAJ650901CAJ651801CAJ6540CAJ664201CAJ708901CAJ709201CAJ728101CAJ728501

CAJ747001CAJ761901CAJ787901CAJ789901CAJ6540ACAJ4011ACAJ7092ACAJ4011BCAJ306701CAJ312001

ManagingOrg

051254

051254051254051254051255

051254051255

051255

051254051252

051255051255

051255051251

051251051251051252051253051253051253051253051253051253051253051253

051253051253051253051253051253051253051253051253051253051253

IssueDate

07/31/1979

02/28/199502/28/199502/28/199501/01/2005

02/28/199509/07/2005

10/12/1984

02/28/199509/19/1995

09/07/200510/12/1984

10/25/200612/06/1991

12/15/199308/25/198004/24/197505/30/199509/19/199502/07/198510/07/199712/12/199510/07/199710/07/199708/02/1978

10/07/199703/14/198510/07/199708/02/198302/18/200909/27/201105/02/201209/13/201203/17/198610/05/1976

Auth Type

Permit (1 year or longer)

EasementEasementEasementPermit (1 year or longer)

EasementPermit (1 year or longer)

Permit (1 year or longer)

EasementTerm Permit

Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)

Term PermitPermit (1 year or longer)

Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)

Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)Permit (1 year or longer)

UseCode

911

911911911911

911911

911

911912

913913

913913

913913913913913913913913913913913

913913913913913913913913913913 38

Exhibit 20

Documents

Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity · memorandum in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in 5:15−cv−02098−jgb−dtb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10