San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the Interior
905 F. Supp. 2d 1158
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- This case arises from a conflict between CVPIA §§ 3406(b)(2) and 3411(b) and the COA’s excess water provisions.
- Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands filed suit on June 9, 2011 challenging a June 6, 2011 pumping reduction during excess water conditions.
- The COA requires maximum export during excess conditions; CVPIA § 3406(b)(2) directs dedicated water for fish and wildlife restoration.
- The change order reduced Jones Pumping Plant pumping from 4,200 cfs to 3,000 cfs for fourteen days, allegedly triggering CVPIA and COA obligations.
- The court previously denied a TRO and preliminarily injunctive relief, and the pumping reduction expired; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to challenge a final agency action.
- The court treats standing and final agency action as core issues and conducts its analysis on the record before it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing for this claim. | San Luis/Authority and Westlands have injury in fact, causal link, and redressability. | Defendants contend no standing for the challenged relief and that the action is not redressable. | Standing established for the challenged claims. |
| Whether injury-in-fact exists from the June 2011 change order. | Change order caused an irrigation water deficit, creating a concrete threat to 2012 allocations. | Any anticipated harm is too speculative and not sufficiently injury-in-fact. | Injury in fact shown via anticipated 2012 allocation risk and storage hole. |
| Whether causation links the pumping reduction to the alleged future harm. | The reduction caused a storage hole plausibly leading to reduced 2012 allocations. | Causation is too tenuous without definitive link. | Causation plausibly established; not merely hypothetical. |
| Whether redressability is satisfied given past actions. | Declatory relief and future compliance would address risk of future injury. | Past injury cannot be remedied; relief limited. | Redressability satisfied; relief could address future harm. |
| Whether the June 6, 2011 change order constitutes final agency action under the APA. | Action marks consummation of decisionmaking with direct effects; reviewable. | Change order is interim and not final agency action. | June 6, 2011 change order is final agency action suitable for APA review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements; injury, causation, redressability must be proven)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (organization standing requirements; germane interests; no required participation of members)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (facial vs. factual attacks on jurisdiction; use of outside evidence)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action concept; consummation and direct effect factors)
- Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Service, 465 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) (finality indicators; agency’s final position and immediate effects)