Kammeyer - VARA opinion.pdf

7/23/2019 Kammeyer - VARA opinion.pdf

1/31

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

O

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

CENTRAL DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

RONALD KAMMEYER, andMURAL CONSERVANCY OF LOSANGELES

Pl ai nt i f f S,

v.

ONEI DA TOTAL I NTEGRATEDENTERPRI SES, UNI TEDSTATES ARMY CORPS OFENGI NEERS, J OHN MCHUGH,

THOMAS BOSTI CK, J O- ELLENDARCY, and KI MBERLYCOLLOTON

Def endant s.

))))

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

Case No.EDCV 15- 869- J GB ( KKx)

ORDER: GRANTINGPlaintiffs Motion for

Preliminary Injunction

(Doc. No. 19.)

[Motion filed June 2,

2015]

On J une 15, 2015, t he Cour t gr ant ed a Tempor ar y

Rest r ai ni ng Or der whi ch enj oi ned Def endant Uni t ed St at es

Ar my Cor ps of Engi neer s ( USACE) f r om al t er i ng or

dest r oyi ng t he Bi cent enni al Freedom Mur al i n Cor ona,

Cal i f or ni a. Now bef or e t he Cour t i s Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on

f or a Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on. The Cour t has consi der ed

al l paper s f i l ed i n suppor t of and i n opposi t i on t o t he

Appl i cat i on as wel l as t he ar gument s pr esent ed at t he

Case 5:15-cv-00869-JGB-KK Document 50 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:2954


2/31

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

August 19, 2015 hear i ng. For t he r easons expr essed

bel ow, t he Cour t GRANTS t he Mot i on.

I.

BACKGROUND

Pl ai nt i f f s Ronal d Kammeyer and t he Mur al Conser vancy

of Los Angel es ( Pl ai nt i f f s) seek t o hal t t he

dest r uct i on of t he Bi cent enni al Freedom Mur al ( t he

Mur al ) t hat i s di spl ayed on t he spi l l way of t he Pr ado

Dam i n Cor ona, Cal i f or ni a.

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r Compl ai nt on May 4, 2015.

( Doc. No. 1. ) On J une 2, 2015, Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a Fi r st

Amended Compl ai nt ( FAC) agai nst Def endant s USACE and

Onei da Tot al I nt egr at ed Ent er pr i ses ( Onei da) . ( Doc.

No. 14. ) The FAC al l eges t hat Pl ai nt i f f Kammeyer i s an

accompl i shed l andscape archi t ect who co- desi gned t he

Mur al when he was i n hi gh school . ( FAC 4, 15. ) The

Mur al , whi ch was pai nt ed by hi gh school vol unt eer s i n

1976, i s 640 f eet l ong and 100 f eet t al l , and i s vi si bl e

t o commut ers passi ng by on t he St at e Rout e 91 f r eeway.

( I d. 17- 18. ) Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat Def endant s pl an

t o dest r oy t he Mur al , ost ensi bl y due t o concer ns over

gr af f i t i and l ead pai nt . ( I d. 21. ) Based on t hese

al l egat i on, Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege causes of act i on under : ( 1)

t he Vi sual Ri ght s Act of 1990 ( VARA) , 17 U. S. C. 101

et seq; ( 2) t he Cal i f or ni a Ar t Pr eser vat i on Act ( CAPA) ,



3/31

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Cal i f or ni a Ci vi l Code 987; ( 3) Cal i f or ni a Busi ness &

Prof essi ons Code 17200.

A.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

On J une 2, 2015, Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r Mot i on f or

Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on. ( Doc. No. 19. ) USACE opposed on

J une 22, 2015. ( Opp n, Doc. No. 27. ) Pl ai nt i f f s

r epl i ed on J une 29, 2015. ( Repl y, Doc. No. 29. )

I n t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on br i ef i ng, USACE

expl ai ns t hat t he Pr ado Dam and i t s spi l l way ar e par t of

a f eder al f l ood- r i sk- management pr oj ect known as t he

Sant a Ana Ri ver Mai nst em Proj ect ( SARM) . 1 ( Opp n at

1. ) The Pr ado Dam i s l ocat ed on f eder al l ands t hat ar e

wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he L. A. Di st r i ct of USACE.

( I d. at 2. ) USACE expl ai ns t hat i n August 2011, a SARM

pr oj ect manager r equest ed t hat USACE per f orm a saf et y

sur vey of t he Mur al ; t hi s r equest was pr ompt ed by

concer ns over t he appear ance of t he Mur al and t he

suspi ci on t hat i t cont ai ned l ead pai nt . ( Decl ar at i on of

Di ane Rosenber g ( Rosenber g Decl . ) , Doc. No. 27- 6, 3. )

The Mur al has become f aded and chi pped over t he year s,

and has al so been t he t ar get of gr af f i t i . ( Decl ar at i on

1 SARM pr ovi des f l ood pr ot ect i on t o t he Sant a AnaRi ver Basi n communi t i es i n Or ange, Ri ver si de, and SanBer nar di no count i es. ( Decl ar at i on of Davi d Van Dor pe( Van Dor pe Decl . ) , Doc. No. 27- 5, 2. )



4/31

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

of Davi d Van Dorpe ( Van Dor pe Decl . ) , Doc. No. 27- 5,

Ex. A. ) USACE has not mai nt ai ned t he Mur al , as i t

asser t s t hat i t s oper at i ons and mai nt enance budget s do

not i ncl ude t he necessar y f unds. ( Decl ar at i on of Li l l i an

Dampi os ( Dampi os Decl . ) , Doc. No. 27- 8, 2. )

Af t er USACE sur veyed t he Mur al , i t commi ssi oned l ead-

pai nt t est i ng. ( Van Dor pe Decl . 10. ) The r epor t ,

f i nal i zed i n May 2014, concl uded t hat var i ous pai nt s on

t he spi l l way wer e ei t her l ead- based or l ead-cont ai ni ng. ( Rosenber g Decl . , Ex. B. ) The r epor t

concl uded t hat t he pai nt shoul d ei t her be encapsul at ed ( a

pr ocess by whi ch a seal ant i s appl i ed over t he pai nt ) or

r emoved so as t o pr event l ead pai nt f r om washi ng of f t he

f ace of t he spi l l way and bei ng r el eased i nt o t he

envi r onment . ( I d. at 4. ) I n May 2014, a USACE pr oj ect

manager pr esent ed t hese concl usi ons t o a USACE r evi ew

boar d. ( Van Dorpe Decl . 11- 12. ) The pr oj ect manager

bel i eved t hat r emedi at i on was necessar y, and pr esent ed

cost est i mat es f or encapsul at i on ( $210, 000. 00) and f ul l

r emoval ( $285, 000. 00) . ( I d. 12. ) USACE l eader shi p

det er mi ned f ul l r emoval was appr opr i at e, gi ven t hat ( 1)

t he est i mat ed cost f or encapsul at i on di d not i ncl ude

f ut ur e upkeep cost s, whi ch woul d l i kel y make

encapsul at i on more expensi ve t han r emoval over t he l ong

t er m, and ( 2) f ut ur e const r uct i on on t he spi l l way was

pl anned, whi ch coul d l ead t o pot ent i al damage of t he



5/31

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

encapsul at i on wi t h r esul t i ng l ead- pai nt exposur e.

( Rosenber g Decl . 17. ) USACE t her ef or e sol i ci t ed

cont r act s f or r emoval of t he Mur al , and ul t i mat el y

awarded t he j ob t o Onei da. ( Van Dorpe Decl . 13- 14. )

On J ul y 25, 2014, USACE post ed a Speci al Publ i c

Not i ce on one of i t s websi t es about t he pl anned r emoval

of t he Mur al . ( Decl ar at i on of Car vel Bass ( Bass

Decl . ) , Doc. No. 27- 3, 7- 8. ) On Apr i l 9, 2015, a

publ i c meet i ng was hel d at Corona Hi gh School , and t hegener al publ i c was i nvi t ed t o speak or pr ovi de wr i t t en

comment s on t he Mural r emoval pr oj ect and on t he Mural

i t sel f . ( Van Dor pe Decl . 25- 26. ) I n Febr uar y 2015,

USACE hel d anot her meet i ng wi t h l ocal gover nment and

r esour ce agenci es, i n whi ch USACE pr esent ed f ur t her

det ai l s about t he Mur al r emoval pr oj ect . ( Van Dor pe

Decl . 17. ) Dur i ng t he meet i ng, USACE i nf ormed t hese

l ocal agenci es t hat i t woul d seek a wi l l i ng par t ner or

par t ner s t o commi t t o r e- pai nt i ng t he spi l l way wi t h a new

mur al and mai nt ai ni ng t hat new mur al i n t he f ut ur e.

( I d. )

B.

Supplemental Briefing

Af t er r evi ewi ng t he par t i es i ni t i al br i ef i ng on t he

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, t he Cour t not ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

had shi f t ed t hei r f ocus t o t hei r t hi r d cause of act i on,



6/31

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

under whi ch t hey asser t ed t hat USACE had not compl i ed

wi t h i t s obl i gat i ons under Sect i on 106 of t he Nat i onal

Hi st or i c Pr eser vat i on Act ( NHPA) . Gi ven t he

si gni f i cance of t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on deci si on, t he

Cour t concl uded t hat f ul l er br i ef i ng on t he i ssue was

necessar y. Addi t i onal l y, Pl ai nt i f f s had not pl eaded

t hei r NHPA cl ai m pr oper l y; r at her t han pl eadi ng i t

agai nst USACE under t he APA ( as woul d have been pr oper ) ,

Pl ai nt i f f s pl eaded i t agai nst Onei da under t he UCL. ( See

Doc. No. 35 at 2. ) The Cour t t her ef or e i ssued an Or deron J ul y 9, 2015. ( Doc. No. 35. ) The Or der gr ant ed

Pl ai nt i f f s l eave t o f i l e a Second Amended Compl ai nt and

r equest ed addi t i onal br i ef i ng on t he NHPA cause of

act i on. ( I d. at 3. )

On J ul y 17, 2015, Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r Second

Amended Compl ai nt , whi ch i ncl uded a cause of act i on under

t he NHPA. ( Doc. No. 36. ) On J ul y 31, 2015, Pl ai nt i f f s

and USACE f i l ed t hei r suppl ement al br i ef i ng on t he NHPA

cause of act i on. ( P. Supp. Br i ef , Doc. No. 39; U.

Supp. Br i ef , Doc. No. 37. ) On August 7, 2015,

Pl ai nt i f f s and USACE f i l ed t hei r opposi t i on suppl ement al

br i ef s. ( P. Supp. Opp n, Doc. No. 43; U. Supp.

Opp n, Doc. No. 44. )



7/31

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

II. LEGAL STANDARD2

A pl ai nt i f f seeki ng a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on must

est abl i sh t hat he i s l i kel y t o succeed on t he mer i t s,

t hat he i s l i kel y t o suf f er i r r epar abl e har m i n t he

absence of pr el i mi nar y r el i ef , t hat t he bal ance of

equi t i es t i ps i n hi s f avor , and t hat an i nj unct i on i s i n

t he publ i c i nt er est . Wi nt er v. Nat ur al Res. Def .

Counci l , I nc. , 555 U. S. 7, 20 ( 2008) . A pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on i s an ext r aor di nar y and dr ast i c r emedy; i t i snever awar ded as of r i ght . Munaf v. Ger en, 553 U. S. 674,

690 ( 2008) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . An i nj unct i on i s bi ndi ng

onl y on par t i es t o t he act i on, t hei r of f i cer s, agent s,

servant s, empl oyees and at t or neys and t hose i n act i ve

concer t or par t i ci pat i on wi t h t hem. Fed. R. Ci v. P.

65( d) .

III.DISCUSSION

Pl ai nt i f f s seek a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on t hat woul d

enj oi n USACE f r om t ak[ i ng] any act i on t hat coul d al t er ,

desecrat e, dest r oy or modi f y i n any way t he Mur al .

Nei t her par t y di sput es t hat absent an i nj unct i on, USACE

wi l l go ahead wi t h i t s pl ans t o r emove t he Mur al .

2 Unl ess ot her wi se not ed, al l ment i ons of Rul er ef er t o t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e.



8/31

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

I n cont est i ng t he Mot i on, USACE pr i mar i l y f ocuses i t s

ar gument s on Pl ai nt i f f s l i kel i hood of success on t he

mer i t s. However , bef or e r eachi ng t he mer i t s ar gument s,

t he Cour t wi l l f i r st di scuss t he l i kel i hood of

i r r epar abl e har m and t he bal ance of equi t i es. Thi s i s

necessar y because t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has endorsed a

sl i di ng scal e t est f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ons. As

st at ed by t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t : [ w] her e t he bal ance of

har dshi ps t i ps shar pl y i n t he pl ai nt i f f ' s f avor and t he

pl ai nt i f f has demonst r at ed a l i kel i hood of i r r epar abl ehar m, however , t he pl ai nt i f f need onl y show t hat ser i ous

quest i ons exi st as t o success on t he mer i t s.

See Al l i ance f or Wi l d Rocki es v. Cot t r el l , 632 F. 3d 1127,

1131 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) .

A.Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

Gi ven t he f act s of t hi s case, t he Cour t easi l y

concl udes t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have shown a hi gh l i kel i hood of

i r r eparabl e harm: USACE i nt ends t o i mmedi at el y remove t he

Mur al i f not enj oi ned. I f t he Mur al i s r emoved, i t wi l l

be dest r oyed and l ost f or ever . I t i s wel l est abl i shed

t hat [ p] r oper t y i s al ways uni que under gener al

pr i nci pl es of t he l aw of equi t y and i t s possi bl e l oss or

dest r uct i on usual l y const i t ut es i r r epar abl e har m.

Fi sher v. Keal oha, No. CI V. 11- 00589 ACK, 2012 WL

2526923, at *10 ( D. Haw. J une 29, 2012) ( quot i ng Bennet



9/31

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

v. Dunn, 504 F. Supp. 981, 986 ( D. Nev. 1980) . Moreover ,

t he pr oper t y at i ssue her e i s a uni que wor k of publ i c ar t

wi t h ar guabl e hi st or i cal si gni f i cance. The dest r uct i on

of t hat ar t whi ch Def endant s concede wi l l occur absent

an i nj unct i on i s cl ear l y i r r epar abl e har m.

B.

The Balance of Equities

The Cour t next concl udes t hat t he bal ance of equi t i es

t i ps shar pl y i n i n Pl ai nt i f f s f avor . I f t he Mur al i sdest r oyed Pl ai nt i f f s and t he publ i c wi l l have no f ur t her

r ecour se. On t he ot her hand, i f t he Cour t gr ant s a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, USACE wi l l onl y suf f er some del ay

i n t hei r constr uct i on pl ans i f i t ul t i mat el y pr evai l s .

Mor eover , i t appear s unl i kel y t hat USACE s pl ans t o

modi f y t he Pr ado Dam wi l l even need t o be post poned at

al l . USACE has conceded t hat t he spi l l way i s not

schedul ed t o be r ai sed unt i l appr oxi mat el y 2019. ( Van

Dor pe Decl . 6. ) I t i s hi ghl y unl i kel y t hat t he

pr oceedi ngs i n t hi s l awsui t wi l l l ast unt i l t hen. I f

USACE ul t i mat el y pr evai l s, i t wi l l st i l l have pl ent y of

t i me t o remove t he Mur al bef or e const r uct i on on t he

spi l l way i s set t o begi n. Thus, any har dshi p t o USACE i s

mi ni mal .



10/31

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

C.Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Gi ven t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have shown bot h an i mmedi at e

t hr eat of i r r epar abl e har m and t hat t he bal ance of

equi t i es t i ps shar pl y i n t hei r f avor , t hey must onl y show

t hat ser i ous quest i ons exi st as t o t hei r l i kel i hood of

success on t he mer i t s. See Al l i ance f or Wi l d Rocki es,

632 F. 3d at 1131. The Cour t wi l l exami ne each of

Pl ai nt i f f s t hr ee cl ai ms agai nst USACE.

1.Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990

a.Sovereign Immunity

USACE f i r st ar gues t hat Pl ai nt i f f s VARA cl ai m i s

bar r ed by t he doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y. The Cour t

di sagr ees.

Under t he doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y, i t i s

axi omat i c t hat t he Uni t ed St at es may not be sued wi t hout

i t s consent and t he exi st ence of consent i s a

pr er equi si t e f or j ur i sdi ct i on. Uni t ed St at es v.

Mi t chel l , 463 U. S. 206, 212 ( 1983) . I n or der f or wai ver s

of t he gover nment ' s sover ei gn i mmuni t y t o be ef f ect i ve,

t hey must be unequi vocal l y expr essed by Congr ess.

Lehman v. Nakshi an, 453 U. S. 156, 16061 ( 1981) . The

same pr i nci pl es of sover ei gn i mmuni t y whi ch woul d appl y



11/31

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t o a sui t agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es appl y t o a sui t

agai nst a gover nment agency, because t he Uni t ed St at es i s

t he r eal par t y i n i nt er est . See Hel ash v. Bal l ar d, 638

F. 2d 74, 76 ( 9t h Ci r . 1980) ( per cur i am) .

Ther e ar e t wo Congr ess i onal wai ver s of sover ei gn

i mmuni t y at pl ay f or pur poses of t hi s Mot i on, 3 t he f i r s t

of whi ch i s t he Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur es Act ( APA) , 5

U. S. C. 702. The APA al l ows a per son suf f er i ng l egal

wr ong because of agency act i on t o seek i nj unct i ve r el i ef( but not money damages) i n a sui t agai nst t he Uni t ed

St at es. 5 U. S. C. 702.

USACE does not di sput e t hat t he APA coul d appl y t o

Pl ai nt i f f s causes of act i on. USACE, a gover nment

agency, has deci ded t o t ake a cour se of act i on t hat

Pl ai nt i f f s asser t i s unl awf ul under VARA. The APA

per mi t s t he Cour t t o hol d unl awf ul and set asi de agency

act i on, f i ndi ngs and concl usi ons t hat ar e ar bi t r ar y,

capr i ci ous . . . or ot her wi se not i n accor dance wi t h

l aw. 5 U. S. C. 706( 2) ( A) ( emphasi s added) . Ther ef or e,

t he APA woul d, on i t s f ace, appear t o appl y t o

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms.

3 Pl ai nt i f f s al so asser t t hat t hey ar e ent i t l ed t omoney damages, whi ch ar e al l owed under t he Federal Tor tCl ai ms Act ( FTCA) , 28 U. S. C. 1346( b) . ( Mot i on at 14. )However , t hat i ssue i s not ger mane t o t hi s Mot i on, asPl ai nt i f f s onl y seek i nj unct i ve r el i ef .



12/31

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

USACE cont ends t hat a cl oser r eadi ng of Sect i on 702

shows t hat Pl ai nt i f f s may not pur sue t hei r VARA cl ai m

under t he APA. Speci f i cal l y, USACE poi nt s t o Sect i on

702( 2) , whi ch expl ai ns t hat a cour t may not gr ant r el i ef

under t he APA i f any ot her st at ut e t hat gr ant s consent

t o sui t expr essl y or i mpl i edl y f or bi ds t he r el i ef whi ch

i s sought . 5 U. S. C. 702( 2) . USACE ar gues t hat 28

U. S. C. 1498( b) f or bi ds t he r el i ef Pl ai nt i f f s seek.

Sect i on 1498( b) i s anot her Congr essi onal wai ver ofsover ei gn i mmuni t y. The st at ut e gr ant s consent f or t he

Uni t ed St at es t o be sued f or copyr i ght i nf r i ngement ; yet ,

i t onl y al l ows monet ar y damages ( not i nj unct i ve r el i ef )

and r equi r es t hat t he cl ai m be br ought i n t he Uni t ed

St at es Cour t of Cl ai ms. 28 U. S. C. 1498( b) . Ther ef or e,

i f Sect i on 1498( b) pr ovi ded t he j ur i sdi ct i onal basi s f or

Pl ai nt i f f s VARA cl ai m, i t woul d pr ecl ude t he i nj unct i ve

r el i ef t hey seek and woul d di vest t hi s Cour t of

j ur i sdi ct i on. However , t he Cour t i s not per suaded t hat

Sect i on 1498( b) appl i es. Sect i on 1498( b) pr ovi des:

[ W] henever t he copyr i ght i n any wor k . . . shal l be

i nf r i nged by t he Uni t ed St at es . . . t he excl usi ve act i on

whi ch may be br ought f or such i nf r i ngement shal l be an

act i on by t he copyr i ght owner agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es

i n t he Cour t of Feder al Cl ai ms f or t he r ecover y of hi s



13/31

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

r easonabl e and ent i r e compensat i on as damages f or such

i nf r i ngement .

28 U. S. C. 1498( b) ( emphasi s added. ) VARA cl ai ms

ar e not f or copyr i ght i nf r i ngement ; r at her , t hey ar e

desi gned t o pr ot ect t he ar t i st i c and r eput at i onal r i ght s

of t he ar t i st . See 17 U. S. C. 106A( a) . These r i ght s

al so r ef er r ed t o as mor al r i ght s af f or d pr ot ect i on

f or t he aut hor s per sonal , non- economi c i nt er est s i n

r ecei vi ng at t r i but i on f or her wor k, and i n pr eser vi ng t hewor k i n t he f or m i n whi ch i t was cr eat ed, even af t er i t s

sal e or l i censi ng. Lei cest er v. War ner Br os. , 232 F. 3d

1212, 1227 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng J ane C. Gi nsbur g,

Copyr i ght i n t he 101st Congr ess: Comment ary on t he Vi sual

Ar t i st s Ri ght s Act and t he Ar chi t ect ur al Wor ks Copyr i ght

Pr ot ect i on Act of 1990, 14 col um. Vl a J . L. & Ar t s 477,

478 ( 1991) ) . As such, even t hough VARA cl ai ms ar e l i st ed

i n t he Copyr i ght s Ti t l e of t he Uni t ed St at es Code, t he

Cour t i s not per suaded t hat t hey const i t ut e cl ai ms f or

copyr i ght i nf r i ngement as cont empl at ed by Sect i on

1498( b) .

Thi s concl usi on i s suppor t ed by t he t ext of VARA

i t sel f . Sect i on 106A( b) , ent i t l ed Scope and exer ci se of

r i ght s, expl ai ns t hat an ar t i st has VARA r i ght s whet her

or not t he aut hor i s t he copyr i ght owner . 17 U. S. C.

106A( b) I t i s t hus cl ear t hat a VARA cl ai m i s not a



14/31

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cl ai m, as a VARA cl ai m may be

br ought by someone who doesn t own t he copyr i ght .

Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he APA, r at her

t han Sect i on 1498( b) , pr ovi des t he appl i cabl e wai ver of

sover ei gn i mmuni t y her e. As such, Pl ai nt i f f s may seek

i nj unct i ve r el i ef as cont empl at ed by t he APA.

b.Plaintiffs VARA Claim

Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s may seek i nj unct i ve r el i ef under

VARA, t hei r VARA cl ai m f ounder s on t he mer i t s. Under t he

f act s pr esent her e, VARA does not gr ant Kammeyer t he

r i ght t o pr event r emoval of t he Mur al .

VARA pr ovi des t hat t he aut hor of a wor k of vi sual

ar t . . . shal l have t he r i ght ( A) t o pr event any

i nt ent i onal di st or t i on, mut i l at i on, or ot her modi f i cat i on

of t hat wor k whi ch woul d be pr ej udi ci al t o hi s or her

honor or r eput at i on, and any i nt ent i onal di st or t i on,

mut i l at i on, or modi f i cat i on of t hat wor k i s a vi ol at i on

of t hat r i ght , and ( B) t o pr event any dest r uct i on of a

wor k of r ecogni zed st at ur e, and any i nt ent i onal or

gr ossl y negl i gent dest r uct i on of t hat wor k i s a vi ol at i on

of t hat r i ght . 17 U. S. C. 106A( a) ( 3) .



15/31

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat Kammeyer i s t he aut hor of t he

Mur al ( a wor k of vi sual ar t ) and t hat he t hus has t he

r i ght t o enj oi n USACE s dest r uct i on of t he Mur al . I f t he

Cour t wer e t o accept Pl ai nt i f f s i nt er pr et at i on of VARA,

Kammeyer woul d have t he l i f et i me r i ght t o keep t he Mur al

on t he spi l l way, r egar dl ess of saf et y, envi r onment al , or

ot her i mpor t ant publ i c pol i cy concer ns. 4 Congr ess coul d

not have i nt ended t hi s l i f el ong- vet o when enact i ng

VARA.

The Fi r st Ci r cui t addressed t hi s i ssue by concl udi ng

t hat VARA does not pr ot ect si t e- speci f i c ar t . Phi l l i ps

v. Pembr oke Real Est at e, I nc. , 459 F. 3d 128, 134 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) . The cour t expl ai ned t hat wi t h si t e- speci f i c

ar t , t he l ocat i on of t he wor k i s an i nt egr al el ement of

t he wor k, and t hus because t he l ocat i on of t he wor k

cont r i but es t o i t s meani ng, si t e- speci f i c ar t i s

dest r oyed i f moved f r om i t s or i gi nal si t e. 5 I n summi ng

4 For exampl e, i magi ne t hat t he spi l l way had agr owi ng crack wi t hi n i t t hat t hr eat ened i t s st r uct ur ali nt egr i t y, and i t needed t o be t or n down i mmedi at el y andr ebui l t . Pl ai nt i f f s l egal t heor y woul d mean t hat he, asan ar t i st , woul d be abl e t o pr event USACE f r om t aki ngsuch st eps.

5 To be sur e, t he Mur al may not t echni cal l y be api ece of s i t e- speci f i c ar t . I n si t e- speci f i c ar t ,t he ar t i st i ncor por at es t he envi r onment as one of t hemedi a wi t h whi ch he wor ks. Phi l l i ps, 459 F. 3d at 134.For exampl e, a scul pt ur e that has a mar i ne t heme t hati nt egr at es t he l ar ge gr ani t e st ones of [ a] par k wi t h[ t he] scul pt ur e and t he gr ani t e sea wal l s of Bost onHar bor i s cl ear l y s i t e- speci f i c ar t . See i d.Never t hel ess, t he Fi r st Ci r cui t s r at i onal e behi nd t he

( cont i nued . . . )



16/31

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

up t he pr obl em of appl yi ng VARA s pr ot ect i ons t o si t e-

speci f i c ar t , t he Fi r st Ci r cui t expl ai ned:

Once a pi ece of ar t i s consi der ed si t e-

speci f i c, and pr ot ect ed by VARA, such obj ect s

coul d not be al t er ed by t he pr oper t y owner

absent consent of t he ar t i st . Such a

concl usi on coul d dr amat i cal l y af f ect r eal

pr oper t y i nt er est s and l aws.

Phi l l i ps, 459 F. 3d at 142. Her e, appl yi ng VARA as

Pl ai nt i f f s ur ge coul d pr esent pot ent i al pr obl ems much

gr aver t han merel y encumber i ng an owner s pr oper t y

i nt er est . The dam i s a l ar ge i nf r ast r uct ur al component

whose upkeep i mpl i cat es ser i ous publ i c saf et y and

envi r onment al concer ns. USACE must be al l owed t o operat e

and manage SARM and t he dam i n a manner t hat pr ot ect s t he

publ i c and pr omot es t hei r desi gnat ed f unct i on. USACE s

pr oposed i mpr ovement s t o t he SARM, i ncl udi ng r ai si ng t he

hei ght of t he dam, const r uct i ng pr ot ect i ve di kes wi t hi n

t he basi n, and r ai si ng t he el evat i on of t he spi l l way ar e

i ndi sput abl y consi st ent wi t h t hese obj ect i ves.

To addr ess t he l i f e- l ong vet o probl em, t he Cour t

coul d concl ude t hat t he Mur al i s si t e- speci f i c and t hus

( . . . cont i nued)si t e- speci f i c except i on t o VARA i s mor e i mpor t ant t hanwhet her t he Mur al may be cl assi f i ed as si t e- speci f i c.



17/31

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

not cover ed by VARA s pr ot ect i ons. Yet , t he Cour t f i nds

anot her r out e mor e l ogi cal l y sound; speci f i cal l y, one

based on i nt er pr et at i on of 17 U. S. C. 113( d) ( 1) , anot her

sect i on of VARA. Sect i on 113( d) ( 1) cr eat es an except i on

t o VARA f or a wor k of vi sual ar t i nst al l ed bef or e J une

1, 19916 t hat has been i ncor por at ed i n or made par t of a

bui l di ng i n such a way t hat r emovi ng t he wor k f r om t he

bui l di ng wi l l cause t he dest r uct i on . . . of t he wor k.

The quest i on t hen becomes whether t he t er m bui l di ngcover s t he Pr ado Dam. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat no ot her

cour t exami ni ng a VARA cl ai m has const r ued bui l di ng t o

mean somet hi ng ot her t han a st andar d r esi dent i al or

commer ci al space. ( Mot i on at 12- 13 ( col l ect i ng cases) . )

However , Pl ai nt i f f s of f er no cases t hat have hel d a

l ar ge, man- made st r uct ure shoul d not be deemed a

bui l di ng under VARA. And t he same j ust i f i cat i ons f or

an except i on f or bui l di ngs appl y t o a dam changes t o a

f unct i onal , man- made st r uct ur e may be necessar y f r om t i me

t o t i me, and t he st r uct ur e s owner shoul d not be

permanent l y pr event ed f r om ever maki ng such changes.

The above anal ysi s assumes t hat t he Mural coul d not

be moved f r om i t s cur r ent l ocat i on. However , Pl ai nt i f f s

asser t t hat t her e i s a st r ong possi bi l i t y t hat t he

Mural coul d be moved, usi ng a t echni que known as t he

6 The dat e VARA became ef f ect i ve.



18/31

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

St r appo Met hod. ( Decl ar at i on of I sabel Roj as- Wi l l i ams,

Doc. No. 20, 3. ) Pl ai nt i f f s do not pr esent any

evi dence about how t hi s pr ocess woul d wor k, or how much

i t woul d cost . However , even i f t he Mur al coul d be moved

wi t hout causi ng i t s dest r uct i on, anot her VARA except i on,

17 U. S. C. 113( d) ( 2) , appl i es. Sect i on 113( d) ( 2)

expl ai ns t hat an owner may r emove a wor k of vi sual ar t i f

t he owner ( 1) pr ovi des wr i t t en not i ce t o t he aut hor of

t he owner s i nt ent i on and ( 2) t he aut hor has not r emoved

t he wor k or pai d f or i t s r emoval wi t hi n ni net y days. 17U. S. C. 113( d) ( 2) . On March 5, 2015, USACE pr ovi ded

f or mal wr i t t en not i ce t o Pl ai nt i f f s counsel of USACE s

i nt ent i on t o r emove t he Mur al f r om t he dam. ( Decl ar at i on

of Lawr ence Mi nch ( Doc. No. 27- 7) , Ex. B. ) Thus, t he

ni net y- day wi ndow cl osed on J une 3, 2015.

Pl ai nt i f f s, wi t hout any ci t at i ons t o evi dence or

f ur t her expl anat i on, st at e t hat t he not i ce di d not t r ul y

[ pr ovi de] 90 days t o r emove t he Mur al and t hat USACE

i nser t ed ar bi t r ar y deadl i nes t o pr esent a pl an. ( Repl y

at 12. ) The Cour t i s not per suaded by t hese unsuppor t ed

asser t i ons.

I n sum, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t he Prado Dam i s a

bui l di ng f or t he pur poses of Sect i on 113( d) and f i nds

t hat USACE has compl i ed wi t h Sect i on 113( d) ( 2) s ni net y-

day not i ce pr ovi si on appl i cabl e t o r emoval s of wor ks of



19/31

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

vi sual ar t . Accor di ngl y, i t i s i mmat er i al whet her t he

mur al can be r emoved. I f r emoval wi t hout dest r uct i on i s

possi bl e, USACE has compl i ed wi t h t he appl i cabl e not i ce

pr ovi si ons. I f i t i s not , VARA s except i on f or wor ks of

vi sual ar t i ncor por at ed i nt o bui l di ngs appl i es. I n

ei t her i nst ance, Pl ai nt i f f s l i kel y cannot pr evai l on

t hei r VARA cl ai m.

2.California Arts Preservation Act

Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t hey ar e l i kel y t o succeed

on t hei r cl ai ms under CAPA, Cal i f or ni a s anal og t o VARA.

( Mot i on at 14- 16. ) USACE r esponds t hat VARA pr eempt s

CAPA. ( Opp n at 22- 23. ) The r eal pr obl em wi t h

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gument , however , i s not t hat CAPA i s

pr eempt ed, but t hat CAPA cannot appl y t o a f eder al

agency s act i ons on f eder al l and. 7

I t i s wel l set t l ed t hat t he act i vi t i es of f eder al

i nst al l at i ons are shi el ded by t he Supr emacy Cl ause f r om

di r ect st at e r egul at i on unl ess Congr ess pr ovi des cl ear

and unambi guous aut hor i zat i on f or such r egul at i on. EPA

v. St at e Wat er Resour ces Cont r ol Boar d, 426 U. S. 200,

211( 1976) ; accor d, Hancock v. Tr ai n, 426 U. S. 167, 178

7 At t he August 19, 2015 hear i ng, t he Cour t order ed

t he par t i es t o submi t addi t i onal br i ef i ng on t hi s i ssue.The par t i es di d so on August 21, 2015. ( Doc. Nos. 47-48. )



20/31

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

179 ( 1976) . Consi st ent wi t h t hi s pr i nci pl e of i mmuni t y,

t he Supr eme Cour t hel d i n Ar i zona v. Cal i f or ni a, 283 U. S.

423 ( 1931) t hat t he Uni t ed St at es was under no obl i gat i on

t o submi t t he pl ans and speci f i cat i ons of t he Boul der Dam

const r uct i on pr oj ect t o t he St at e of Ar i zona f or

appr oval . 283 U. S. at 451- 52. The Cour t emphasi zed t hat

t he Uni t ed St at es must be f r ee t o per f or m i t s f unct i ons

wi t hout conf or mi ng t o t he pol i ce r egul at i ons of a st at e.

I d.

Her e, Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat USACE shoul d be subj ect

t o Cal i f or ni a st at e l aw ( CAPA) , even t hough i t i s a

f eder al agency seeki ng t o t ake act i on on f eder al l and.

USACE hopes t o remove t he Mur al , i n par t so t hat i t may

pr oceed wi t h r ai si ng t he hei ght of t he Prado Dam s

spi l l way. These f act s ar e anal ogous t o t hose i n Uni t ed

St at es v. St at e of Mont . , 699 F. Supp. 835 ( D. Mont .

1988) . Ther e, t he Uni t ed St at es br ought an act i on

chal l engi ng Mont ana s at t empt t o enf or ce i t s bui l di ng

codes and r egul at i ons on const r uct i on pr oj ect s occur r i ng

on f eder al mi l i t ar y i nst al l at i ons. 499 F. Supp. at 836-

37. The cour t expl ai ned t hat [ t ] o t he ext ent t he St at e

of Mont ana, by t he enf or cement of i t s bui l di ng codes, i s

at t empt i ng t o exer ci se aut hor i t y over t he pl ans and

speci f i cat i ons f or const r uct i on pr oj ect s at f eder al

mi l i t ar y i nstal l at i ons, t he conf l i ct i s i ndi st i ngui shabl e

f r om t he conf l i ct pr esent ed i n Ar i zona v. Cal i f or ni a, 283



21/31

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

U. S. 423, 451 ( 1931) . I d. at 838. Her e, al t hough

Cal i f or ni a i t sel f i s not seeki ng t o enf or ce i t s own

aut hor i t y, Pl ai nt i f f s ar e at t empt i ng t o use st at e l aw t o

r est r i ct a const r uct i on pr oj ect on f eder al l and.

Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Ar i zona s hol di ng i s

cont r ol l i ng, and t hat USACE s conduct l i kel y cannot be

r est r i ct ed by CAPA.

As such, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have not

shown ser i ous quest i ons exi st as t o t hei r CAPA cl ai m.

3.Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act

Fi nal l y, Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t hey ar e l i kel y t o

show t hat USACE di d not compl y wi t h i t s obl i gat i ons under

Sect i on 106 of t he Nat i onal Hi st or i c Pr eser vat i on Act

( NHPA) . 8 Pl ai nt i f f s br i ng t hi s cl ai m under t he APA. 9

8 As pr evi ousl y expl ai ned, Pl ai nt i f f s and USACEpr esent t hese ar gument s i n t he suppl ement al br i ef i ng t hatt he Cour t or der ed on t hi s i ssue. ( See Doc. No. 35 ( J ul y9, 2015 Or der expl ai ni ng why suppl ement al br i ef i ng was

necessar y on t hi s i ssue) . )9 As previ ousl y st at ed, under t he APA a cour t may

over t ur n an agency s deci si on i f i t f i nds t hat i t i sar bi t r ar y, capr i ci ous, an abuse of di scr et i on, orot her wi se not i n accor dance wi t h l aw. 5 U. S. C. 706( 2) ( A) . The st andar d of r evi ew i s nar r ow, and doesnot empower cour t s t o subst i t ut e t hei r j udgment f or t hatof t he agency. See Mar sh v. Or egon Nat ur al Res. Counci l ,490 U. S. 360, 378 ( 1989) .



22/31

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Sect i on 106 of t he NHPA i s a st op, l ook, and l i st en

pr ovi si on t hat r equi r es f eder al agenci es t o consi der t he

ef f ect s of i t s pr ogr ams. See Mont ana Wi l der ness Ass' n v.

Connel l , 725 F. 3d 988, 1005 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) . Under t he

NHPA, a f eder al agency must make a r easonabl e and good

f ai t h ef f or t t o i dent i f y hi st or i c pr oper t i es; det er mi ne

whet her i dent i f i ed pr oper t i es ar e el i gi bl e f or l i st i ng on

t he Nat i onal Regi st er based on cr i t er i a i n 36 C. F. R.

60. 4; assess t he ef f ect s of t he under t aki ng on any

el i gi bl e hi st or i c pr oper t i es f ound; det er mi ne whet her t heef f ect wi l l be adver se; and avoi d or mi t i gat e any adver se

ef f ect s. I d.

Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat USACE f ai l ed at t he f i r st

st ep: i t never made a good f ai t h ef f or t t o i dent i f y

whet her t he Mur al was hi st or i c pr oper t y bef or e i ni t i at i ng

t he pl an t o r emove i t .

Under t he NHPA, an agency must t ake t he st eps

necessar y t o i dent i f y hi st or i c pr oper t i es wi t hi n t he ar ea

of pot ent i al ef f ect s bef or e begi nni ng an under t aki ng.

36 C. F. R. 800. 4( b) . I n goi ng t hr ough t he pr ocess of

i dent i f yi ng hi st or i cal pr oper t i es, an agency must i n

consul t at i on wi t h t he [ St at e Hi st or i cal Pr eser vat i on

Of f i cer ] . . . r evi ew exi st i ng i nf or mat i on on hi st or i c

pr oper t i es wi t hi n t he ar ea of pot ent i al ef f ects,

i ncl udi ng any dat a concer ni ng possi bl e hi st or i c



23/31

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

pr oper t i es not yet i dent i f i ed. 36 C. F. R. 800. 4( a) ( 2) .

An agency i s al so r equi r ed t o seek i nf or mat i on, as

appr opr i at e, f r om consul t i ng par t i es, and ot her

i ndi vi dual s and or gani zat i ons l i kel y t o have knowl edge

of , or concer ns wi t h, hi st or i c pr oper t i es, and i dent i f y

i ssues r el at i ng t o t he under t aki ng s pot ent i al ef f ect s on

hi st or i c pr oper t i es. 36 C. F. R. 800. 4( a) ( 3) .

USACE cont ends i t f ul f i l l ed i t s NHPA obl i gat i ons

t hr ough a ser i es of st eps i t t ook whi l e i n t he begi nni ngst ages of t he SARM Proj ect . 10 Fi r st , i n August 1988,

USACE pr epar ed a Gener al Desi gn Memor andum ( GDM) .

( Suppl ement al Decl ar at i on of St ephen Di bbl e ( Di bbl e

Decl . I I ) , Doc. No. 38, 3. ) The GDM i ncl uded an

Appendi x t hat out l i ned t he SARM Pr oj ect s pot ent i al

i mpact s on cul t ur al r esour ces. ( I d. 4. ) The GDM

Appendi x not ed t hat t he Pr ado Dam i t sel f coul d

pot ent i al l y be consi der ed a hi st or i c pr oper t y. ( I d. )

To eval uat e t he Pr ado Dam, as cal l ed f or i n t he GDM

Appendi x, USACE commi ssi oned a repor t i n Oct ober 1989.

( I d. 5. ) The r epor t , ent i t l ed The Pr ado Dam and

Reser voi r , Ri ver si de and San Ber nar di no Count i es,

Cal i f or ni a, concl uded t hat t he Pr ado Dam i t sel f ( not t he

10 The SARM Pr oj ect was desi gned t o pr ovi de ur banf l ood pr ot ect i on t o communi t i es i n Or ange, Ri ver si de, andSan Ber nar di no Count i es. ( Di bbl e Decl . I I 3. ) TheSARM Pr oj ect r ecommended, among ot her t hi ngs, r ai si ng t hePr ado Dam t o pr ovi de addi t i onal f l ood pr ot ect i on. ( I d. )



24/31

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Mur al , whi ch was bar el y ment i oned) was el i gi bl e f or

i ncl usi on i n t he Nat i onal Regi st er of Hi st or i c Pl aces.

( I d. , Ex. 3, Doc. No. 38- 3 at 14. ) The r epor t

pr i nci pal l y f ocuses on t he hi st or y, const r uct i on,

f unct i oni ng, and ar chi t ect ur e of t he dam i t sel f . ( See

Doc. No. 38- 3 at 1- 14. ) I n t he f our t een pages of t he

r epor t t hat USACE pr ovi ded, t he Mur al r ecei ves t wo

sent ences of di scussi on. 11 ( I d. at 10. )

Af t er t he r epor t was compl et ed, USACE sent a l et t ert o t he St at e Hi st or i cal Pr eser vat i on Of f i ce ( SHPO) on

March 27, 1991, advi si ng i t t hat USACE had concl uded t hat

t he Pr ado Dam was el i gi bl e f or l i st i ng as a hi st or i c

pr oper t y. ( Di bbl e Decl . I I 6. ) USACE al so dr af t ed a

Pr ogr ammat i c Agr eement f or t he i mpl ement at i on of t he SARM

Pr oj ect . ( I d. 7. ) Af t er consul t at i on wi t h t he SHPO

and t he Amer i can Counci l on Hi st or i c Pr eser vat i on

( ACHP) , USACE f i nal i zed t he Pr ogr ammat i c Agr eement i n

Apr i l 1993. ( I d. Ex. 8, Doc. No. 38- 8 at 1. ) . The

Pr ogr ammat i c Agr eement was ul t i mat el y si gned by USACE,

t he SHPO, t he ACHP, Or ange Count y, Ri ver si de Count y, San

Bernardi no Count y, and t wo Nat i ve Amer i can

r epr esent at i ves. ( Di bbl e Decl . I I 11. ) As par t of t he

11 The r epor t st at es, . . . a l ar ge r ed, whi t e, andbl ue l ogo, 200 Years of Fr eedom, 1776- 1976, was pai nt edon t he Pr ado Dam spi l l way i n 1976 by st udent s f r om t heCor ona Hi gh School . Easi l y vi si bl e f r om Hi ghway 91 j ustsout h of t he dam, t he l ogo remai ns t oday one of t he dam smost st r i ki ng f eat ur es.



25/31

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Pr ogr ammat i c Agr eement , USACE agr eed t hat i t woul d

devel op a t r eat ment pl an t o addr ess t he adver se ef f ect s

of t he SARM Pr oj ect on hi st or i c pr oper t i es. ( I d. ) USACE

addr essed t he ef f ect s on t he Prado Dam, whi ch was l i kel y

goi ng t o be modi f i ed as par t of t he SARM Proj ect , by

compl et i ng a Hi st or i c Amer i can Engi neer i ng Recor d

( HAER) document at i on of t he Dam, whi ch occur r ed i n J une

1996. ( I d. Ex. 13, Doc. No. 38- 13. ) The body of t he

HAER i s 89 pages l ong. ( I d. ) I t pr i nci pal l y di scusses

t he desi gn, const r uct i on, physi cal l ayout , and oper at i ngpr i nci pl es of t he Pr ado Dam. ( I d. at 2- 3 ( t abl e of

cont ent s of t he HAER) . ) I t di scusses t he Mur al i t sel f

f or t wo sent ences t he same t wo sent ences f r om t he

Oct ober 1989 r epor t . ( I d. at 13. )

I n 2011, USACE det ermi ned t hat l ead pai nt on t he

Mur al woul d hi nder f ur t her work on t he Pr ado Dam.

( Di bbl e Decl . I I 22. ) Mr . Di bbl e, a Seni or Di st r i ct

Ar cheol ogi st wi t h USACE, concl uded t hat t he Mur al was not

a hi st or i c pr oper t y based sol el y on t he 1993 Pr ogr ammat i c

Agr eement . ( Di bbl e Decl . 8. ) Mr . Di bbl e al so

concl uded t hat t her e was no basi s f or a new consul t at i on

t o eval uat e t he Mur al . ( Di bbl e Decl . I I 23. )

Addi t i onal l y, Mr . Di bbl e concedes t hat he di d not consul t

wi t h t he SHPO as par t of hi s NHPA eval uat i on. ( Di bbl e

Decl . 8 ( Based on my r evi ew of t he pr oposal f or t he

pai nt r emoval act i on, t he concl usi on of my eval uat i on was



26/31

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t hat t her e wer e no hi st or i c pr oper t i es i n t he [ Ar ea of

Pot ent i al Ef f ect s] or sur r oundi ng t he spi l l way, and t hus

no Sect i on 106 consul t at i on was necessar y. ) ( emphasi s

added) . )

Ther e i s cl ear l y a ser i ous quest i on as t o whet her

USACE s act i ons wer e suf f i ci ent under Sect i on 106 of t he

NHPA. USACE s onl y at t empt at eval uat i on of t he Mur al

t ook pl ace i n 1989 over 27 years ago. And t he Oct ober

1989 r epor t i s def i ci ent f or t wo r easons.

Fi r st , t he r epor t cl ear l y di d not f ocus on t he Mur al

i t sel f ; i t cent er ed on t he hi st or y, f unct i oni ng, and

ar chi t ect ur e of t he Prado Dam. ( See Doc. No. 38- 3 at 1-

14. ) The r epor t devot es t wo sent ences t o t he Mur al , and

obvi ousl y does not eval uat e t he hi st or i cal si gni f i cance

of i t . Even i f t hi s coul d be cal l ed an eval uat i on, Mr .

Di bbl e shoul d not have r el i ed on t hose t wo sent ences when

conduct i ng hi s eval uat i on i n 2011. The NHPA expl ai ns

t hat an agency of f i ci al may be r equi r ed t o r eeval uat e

pr oper t i es t hat wer e subj ect ed t o i ncompl et e pr i or

eval uat i ons. 36 C. F. R. 800. 4( c) ( 1) .

The second r eason i s t he r epor t s age. The NHPA

i t sel f r ecogni zes t hat t he passage of t i me, changi ng

per cept i ons of si gni f i cance . . . may r equi r e t he agency

of f i ci al t o reeval uat e pr oper t i es pr evi ousl y det er mi ned



27/31

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

el i gi bl e or i nel i gi bl e. 36 C. F. R. 800. 4( c) ( 1) . The

Mur al i s now appr oxi mat el y 40 years ol d i t was 13 years

ol d at t he t i me of t he 1989 r epor t . And t her e ar e

cer t ai nl y ser i ous quest i ons as t o whet her i t i s subj ect

t o changi ng per cept i ons of i t s si gni f i cance. I t i s one

of t he onl y a handf ul of bi cent enni al mur al s r emai ni ng,

and i t i s bot h t he l ar gest and most vi si bl e of t hose

st i l l exi st i ng. ( Decl ar at i on of Dani el Paul , Doc. No.

15- 2, 1. ) Dani el Paul , an ar chi t ect ur al hi st or i an,

decl ar es t hat t he Mur al has become one of t he l ast publ i cwor ks of any ki nd mani f est l y associ at ed wi t h t he Uni t ed

St at es Bi cent enni al , and t hat i t i s t hus a hi st or i c

physi cal l andmar k. ( I d. 8. ) Fur t her mor e, t he Mur al

has been r ecogni zed i n news ar t i cl es as one of t he

l ar gest pat r i ot i c mur al s i n Amer i ca and has been honor ed

by numer ous l ocal , st at e, and f eder al gover nment

of f i ci al s. ( See Decl ar at i on of Er i c Bj or gum, Doc. No.

15- 1, 2; Ex. E. ) . The ci t i es of Nor co, East val e, and

Cor ona have passed r esol ut i ons i n f avor of r est or i ng and

pr eser vi ng t he Mur al . 12 ( Doc. No. 39- 1, Exs. A, B; Doc.

No. 43- 1 4. ) Fi nal l y, t he Mur al i s cl ear l y a sour ce of

pr i de and meani ng t o l ocal r esi dent s. Over 14, 000

ci t i zens have si gned a pet i t i on t o Save t he Pr ado Dam.

12 Addi t i onal l y, t he ACHP recent l y wei ghed i n andexpr essed concer ns t o USACE about t he publ i c not i ce i tpr ovi ded r egar di ng t he pl ans t o r emove t he mur al . ( Doc.No. 39- 1, Ex. C. )



28/31

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

( Decl ar at i on of Pet er Usl e ( Usl e Decl . ) Doc. No. 21,

Ex. B. )

I n sum, t her e ar e ser i ous quest i ons as t o whet her

USACE i n consul t at i on wi t h t he SHPO . . . r evi ew[ ed]

exi st i ng i nf or mat i on on hi st or i c pr oper t i es . . .

i ncl udi ng any dat a concer ni ng possi bl e hi st or i c

pr oper t i es not yet i dent i f i ed bef or e appr ovi ng t he

r emoval of t he Mur al . See 36 C. F. R. 800. 4( a) ( 2) .

USACE was r equi r ed t o seek i nf or mat i on, as appr opr i at e,f r om consul t i ng par t i es, and ot her i ndi vi dual s and

or gani zat i ons l i kel y t o have knowl edge of , or concer ns

wi t h, hi st or i c pr oper t i es, and i dent i f y i ssues r el at i ng

t o t he under t aki ng s pot ent i al ef f ect s on hi st or i c

pr oper t i es. 36 C. F. R. 800. 4( a) ( 3) . I t i s appar ent

t hat t hey di d not do so. Thus, t he Cour t concl udes t hat

Pl ai nt i f f s have r ai sed ser i ous quest i ons about whet her

USACE s deci si on t o r emove t he Mur al was ar bi t r ar y or

capr i ci ous under t he APA. See Paci f i c Coast Fed' n of

Fi sher men' s Ass' ns v. Nat ' l Mar i ne Fi sher i es Ser v. , 265

F. 3d 1028, 1034 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( An agency deci si on i s

i nadequat e wher e t he agency ent i r el y f ai l ed t o consi der

an i mpor t ant aspect of t he pr obl em or f ai l ed t o

consi der [ ] t he r el evant f act or s and ar t i cul at e[ ] a

r at i onal connect i on bet ween t he f act s f ound and t he

choi ce made. )



29/31

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

USACE al so ar gues t hat , even i f i t di dn t consul t a

pr oper eval uat i on, i t woul d not mat t er , as t he Mur al

woul d not be el i gi bl e f or i ncl usi on i n t he Nat i onal

Regi st er . ( U. Supp. Br i ef at 7. ) To be sur e, under t he

r el evant gui del i nes, pr oper t i es t hat ar e pr i mar i l y

commemorat i ve i n nat ur e or t hat have achi eved

si gni f i cance wi t hi n t he past 50 year s ar e gener al l y not

consi der ed el i gi bl e f or i ncl usi on i n t he Nat i onal

Regi st er of Hi st or i c Pr oper t i es. 36 C. F. R. 60. 4.

However , a commemorat i ve pr oper t y may qual i f y i f i t sdesi gn, age, t r adi t i on, or symbol i c val ue has i nvest ed

i t wi t h i t s own except i onal si gni f i cance. I d. And i f a

pr oper t y i s l ess t han 50 year s ol d, i t may be desi gnat ed

a hi st or i c pr oper t y i f i t i s of except i onal i mpor t ance.

I d. Gi ven t he gr oundswel l of publ i c suppor t and r enewed

hi st or i cal i nt er est i n t he Mur al , t he Cour t concl udes

t hat t her e i s a ser i ous quest i on as t o whet her t he Mur al

meet s one of t hese except i ons. Fur t hermore, USACE cannot

si dest ep i t s dut i es under t he NHPA by put t i ng f or t h

bel at ed and sel f - ser vi ng specul at i on about what a pr oper

Sect i on 106 eval uat i on woul d r eveal .

I n l i ght of t he above, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t her e ar e

ser i ous quest i ons as t o whet her Pl ai nt i f f s wi l l pr evai l

on t hei r APA cl ai m t hat USACE di d not pr oper l y eval uat e

t he Mur al under Sect i on 106 of t he NHPA.



30/31

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

c.The Public Interest

Fi nal l y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have shown

t hat an i nj unct i on her e woul d be i n t he publ i c i nt er est .

Pl ai nt i f f s have pr esent ed t housands of si gnat ur es and

comment s at t est i ng t o t he Mur al s val ue t o t he communi t y;

communi t y members not e t he sense of ci vi c pr i de and

pat r i ot i c appr eci at i on t he Mur al engender s. ( See Usl e

Decl . , Exs. A, B. ) Fur t her mor e, l ocal gover nment s have

begun t o come f or war d t o expr ess t hei r suppor t f orpr eser vi ng t he Mur al . ( See Doc. No. 39- 1, Exs. A, B;

Doc. No. 43- 1 4 ( r esol ut i ons by Ci t i es of Nor co,

East val e, and Cor ona) . ) Addi t i onal l y, Cal i f or ni a l aw

makes cl ear t hat t her e i s a publ i c i nt er est i n

pr eser vi ng t he i nt egr i t y of cul t ur al and ar t i st i c

creat i ons. Cal . Ci v. Code 987( a) .

Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds Pl ai nt i f f s have shown

t hat an i nj unct i on woul d be i n t he publ i c s i nt er est .

IV.

CONCLUSION

The Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have shown an

i mmedi at e t hr eat of i r r epar abl e har m and t hat t he bal ance

of equi t i es t i ps shar pl y i n t hei r f avor . The Cour t al so

f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have shown ser i ous quest i ons exi st

as t o t hei r NHPA cause of act i on br ought under t he APA.



31/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

Fi nal l y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat an i nj unct i on woul d ser ve

t he publ i c i nt er est . The Cour t t her ef or e GRANTS

Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on, and ORDERS as f ol l ows:

USACE or t hei r agent s, servant s, empl oyees,

at t or neys, or any ot her per sons i n act i ve concer t or

par t i ci pat i on wi t h USACE, shal l not t ake any act i on

t hat coul d al t er , desecr at e, dest r oy or modi f y i n any

way t he pai nt ed mural known as t he 200 Year s of

Freedom Mur al pai nt ed on t he spi l l way of t he Pr adoDam i n Cor ona, Cal i f or ni a unt i l t hi s mat t er i s f ul l y

adj udi cat ed.

The Cour t shal l r et ai n t he nomi nal bond of f i ve

hundr ed dol l ar s ( $500) Pl ai nt i f f s post ed J une 11,

2015, as secur i t y f or t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dat ed: August 24, 2015 _________________________J esus G. Ber nal

Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge


Kammeyer - VARA opinion.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Kammeyer - VARA opinion.pdf