AquAlliance v. United States Bureau of Reclamation
856 F.3d 101
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- AquAlliance, an environmental nonprofit, submitted FOIA requests to the Bureau of Reclamation seeking 2013–2014 water-transfer records; the Bureau produced records but redacted well construction, depth, and location data.
- The Bureau withheld those redactions under FOIA Exemption 9, which excludes from disclosure "geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells." (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9)).
- AquAlliance sued in D.C. District Court to compel disclosure; the district court granted summary judgment to the Bureau, holding Exemption 9 covers water-well depth and location.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and assessed whether the withheld information falls within Exemption 9’s plain text.
- The court concluded the ordinary meaning of "wells" includes water wells and that well depth and location are archetypal geological/geophysical information because they reveal subsurface water tables and aquifers.
- The court rejected AquAlliance’s attempts to limit Exemption 9 to technical or competitively valuable data or to oil-and-gas wells, holding the statute’s unqualified wording controls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exemption 9 covers location and depth of water wells | AquAlliance: Exemption 9 should be limited to technical/scientific data or info conferring competitive advantage, and intended for oil/gas wells only | Bureau: Exemption 9’s plain text covers "geological and geophysical information...concerning wells," which includes water wells and maps | Held: Exemption 9 applies; well location and depth are geological/geophysical and may be withheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Department of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (statutory text is the starting point; FOIA exemptions construed narrowly but given their plain meaning)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson, 456 U.S. 615 (context on FOIA exemptions and narrow construction)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (courts must respect the exemptions’ ordinary meaning and reach)
- DiBacco v. United States Army, 795 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir.) (discussion of FOIA exemption interpretation)
- AquAlliance v. Bureau of Reclamation, 139 F. Supp. 3d 203 (D.D.C. 2015) (district court decision granting summary judgment to the Bureau on Exemption 9)
- National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (burden on the government to prove FOIA exemption applicability)
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Comm’n, 711 F.3d 180 (standard of review for FOIA summary judgment)