762 F. Supp. 2d 1214
S.D. Cal.2011Background
- This APA case concerns environmental conditions in the Original River Channel (ORC) downstream of Palo Verde, CA.
- Plaintiff Citizens Legal Enforcement and Restoration (CLEAR) seeks judicial review under the APA against Reclamation and Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) for alleged failures related to the Cibola Cut and ORC.
- Reclamation designed and built the Cibola Cut (1966–1970) to control floods and sediment; ORC now has limited water inflows and is affected by drainage systems.
- PVID is a California irrigation district that operates water delivery and drainage systems; its Outfall Drain feeds the ORC and eventually the Colorado River.
- CLEAR asserts claims under the APA (and state law via §8) alleging Reclamation’s failure to act and comply with state laws; the court also addresses PVID’s involvement.
- The court grants Reclamation’s summary judgment on most claims, dismisses claims against PVID for lack of jurisdiction, and denies related cross-motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| APA failure-to-act scope under §706(1) | CLEAR seeks review of alleged ongoing failure to act. | Reclamation argues failure-to-act claims are not cognizable unless discrete action is required by law. | Not cognizable for discrete action; claims time-barred or not actionable. |
| RHA §10 claim timeliness | Claim concerns failure to obtain a permit for the Cibola Cut. | APA statute of limitations and failure-to-act limitations apply; time-barred. | GRANTS Reclamation summary judgment on RHA §10 claim; time-barred. |
| Section 8/state-law review viability | Section 8 requires compliance with state laws (California Constitution and public trust). | SUWA limits to discrete agency action; state-law duties are not sufficiently discrete. | Plaintiff's §8 state-law claims not enforceable to the extent they rely on discretionary state duties; limited discrete-action analysis applied. |
| California Constitution Art. X, §2 and public trust doctrine as discrete actions | These provisions impose concrete duties to prevent waste/unreasonable use. | These are either amorphous or discretionary and thus not actionable under the APA; public trust doctrine too general. | Art. X, §2 to the extent mandating prevention of waste is enforceable as discrete action; public trust doctrine not enforceable; limited to discrete duty. |
| PVID claims and jurisdiction | State-law claims against PVID remain; federal court may retain supplemental jurisdiction. | Diversity lacking; DISMISSA L; no jurisdiction to adjudicate state-law claims. | Dismisses claims against PVID for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; dismisses cross-motions as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute standard; view in light favorable to nonmovant)
- Win d River Mining v. United States, 946 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1991) (Wind River exception to timeliness for APA claims vs. ongoing policy challenges)
- SUWA v. South Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (discrete agency action requirement; limits on enforcing general duties under APA)
- Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958) (state law compliance when carrying out reclamation works; state rights)
- National Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983) (public trust doctrine as a planning consideration; not per se enforceable via APA)
- Wind River v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 946 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1991) ( Wind River framework for when challenges may be brought under APA)
- Patterson v. United States (Ninth Circuit/California context), 333 F.Supp.2d 906 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (section 8 applicability to specific reclamation operations; distinguish from ongoing management)