San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Haugrud
848 F.3d 1216
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in 2013 released additional Trinity River water from Lewiston Dam to the Trinity and into the lower Klamath River to prevent a likely mass die-off of migrating salmon; BOR cited the Act of August 12, 1955 (the "1955 Act") as authorization.
- The Trinity River Division (TRD) diverts Trinity water to the Central Valley Project (CVP); Congress in 1955 authorized the TRD but included a proviso directing the Secretary to "adopt appropriate measures to insure the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife."
- Later statutes and administrative actions relevant here: the 1984 Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act, the CVPIA (1992) §3406(b)(23) (calling for a Trinity-only permanent instream release schedule), and the 2000 Record of Decision (ROD) establishing a hydrology-based release schedule.
- Water contractors (San Luis & Delta‑Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District) sued, alleging BOR exceeded statutory authority (1955 Act), violated CVPIA §3406(b)(23), violated Reclamation Act §383 and CVPIA §3411(a) by not obtaining state permit modifications, and failed to comply with the ESA/section 7. District court held BOR lacked authority under the 1955 Act (but ruled for BOR on the other statutory claims and found no standing for the ESA claim).
- Ninth Circuit review: panel reversed the district court on the 1955 Act issue (finding BOR had authority), affirmed that the §3406(b)(23) permanent schedule applies only to the Trinity (so the 2013 release to aid the Klamath did not violate it), held BOR complied with California law (Cal. Fish & Game Code §5937) so no violation of §383 or §3411(a), and found the water contractors lacked Article III standing to pursue the ESA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1955 Act authorized BOR to release additional Trinity water for fish protection downstream (including lower Klamath) | 1955 Act limited to CVP purposes; provisos don't allow extra releases benefiting areas outside Trinity basin | 1955 Act's preservation/propagation clause ("appropriate measures") is broad, unbounded geographically, authorizes releases to preserve fish downstream | BOR authorized to implement the 2013 flow augmentation under the 1955 Act (reversed district court) |
| Whether CVPIA §3406(b)(23) and the 2000 ROD preclude BOR from releasing water to benefit the lower Klamath (i.e., exceed the ROD schedule) | Permanent schedule caps releases from Lewiston Dam; augmentation exceeded that cap | §3406(b)(23) and the 2000 ROD govern Trinity River instream releases only, not releases made to aid the Klamath downstream | §3406(b)(23) is geographically limited to the Trinity basin; 2013 Klamath-directed release did not violate it (affirmed district court) |
| Whether BOR violated state water law, the Reclamation Act §383, or CVPIA §3411(a) by releasing water to places not listed in its permits without state modification | BOR changed place/purpose of use without obtaining State Water Resources Control Board approval, violating state law and §3411(a) | Cal. Fish & Game Code §5937 requires dam owners to release sufficient water to preserve fish below the dam, exempting such releases from permit modification; §3411(a) defers to state law | §5937 authorized the releases; BOR did not violate state law, §383, or §3411(a) (affirmed) |
| Whether the water contractors have standing to bring an ESA section 7 claim for BOR’s alleged failure to consult | Failure to consult threatens contractors’ economic interests (reduced cold-water storage → restrictions on CVP deliveries → economic harm) | Chain of events is speculative and too attenuated; alleged injury not fairly traceable to BOR action | Plaintiffs lack Article III standing for the ESA claim because the asserted economic injury is speculative and not fairly traceable (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- San Luis & Delta‑Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014) (prior Ninth Circuit decision involving CVP and related statutory claims)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (effects of TRD on Trinity fisheries and prior Reclamation Act/NEPA context)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (statutory broad language implies broad coverage)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (Congressional use of broad general language to cover unforeseen inventions/contingencies)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (administrative action review: arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing framework and procedural-rights doctrine)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing: injury, traceability, redressability)