Aqualliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation
139 F. Supp. 3d 203
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- AquAlliance (requester) submitted FOIA requests for Bureau of Reclamation records about 2013–2014 California water transfers, including well-related reports and maps.
- The Bureau searched custodial records, produced responsive documents, but redacted certain material invoking FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, 6, and 9; Plaintiff did not challenge Exemption 5 or search adequacy.
- Redactions at issue: technical/well data and maps (well location, depth, construction) and names/addresses of individual participants and a private well owner.
- The Bureau claimed well data were protected under Exemptions 4 and 9; it claimed names/addresses were protected under Exemption 6. It later withdrew Exemption 4 for well-location maps and relied on Exemption 9 for those materials.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed; the Court granted the Bureau summary judgment as to Exemption 9 and denied it as to Exemption 6, and granted AquAlliance summary judgment as to Exemption 6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 9 covers water wells and the withheld well-related information | Exemption 9 applies only to oil/exploration wells and only to technical/scientific data, not plain location/depth info | Exemption 9’s plain text covers "geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells" without limiting to oil; withheld maps/reports reveal geophysical info | Held: Exemption 9 applies to water wells and to the withheld maps and construction/depth data — Bureau entitled to withhold under Exemption 9 |
| Whether Exemption 4 shields the same well information | (Challenged initially) well data provided to Bureau during permitting are not confidential commercial information and would not cause competitive harm | Bureau initially invoked Exemption 4 but later abandoned it for well-location maps; overlapping protection exists with Exemption 9 | Held: Court did not reach separate Exemption 4 analysis because Exemption 9 independently justified withholding |
| Whether Exemption 6 permits withholding of names and addresses of individual participants/owners | Names/addresses are commercial/public-interest information and, even if personal, public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy | Disclosure would invade personal privacy; individuals have stronger privacy than entities | Held: Exemption 6 does not justify withholding — privacy interest minimal and public interest in agency oversight outweighs it |
| Burden of proof and adequacy of agency affidavits on summary judgment | N/A — plaintiff does not contest search adequacy or Exemption 5 | Agency must justify exemptions with sufficiently detailed, non-conclusory declarations and Vaughn indices | Held: Agency met its burden for Exemption 9 with detailed explanation; agency did not justify Exemption 6 redactions sufficiently in light of balancing test |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (statutory interpretation begins with plain text)
- Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) (interpretation principles cited for statutory clarity)
- Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 388 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (upholding Exemption 9 for maps showing water-well locations)
- Starkey v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (applying Exemption 9 to groundwater/well data)
- Black Hills Alliance v. United States Forest Service, 603 F. Supp. 117 (D.S.D. 1984) (earlier decision reading Exemption 9 more narrowly to technical/scientific data)
- Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep’t of Agric., 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Exemption 6 framework: threshold privacy interest then public-interest balancing)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (privacy interest in names/addresses and standards for Exemption 6)
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (FOIA’s core public-interest purpose guides Exemption 6 balancing)