772 F. Supp. 2d 1210
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- This case concerns operation of the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project and whether federal defendants must provide more irrigation water under Reclamation statutes.
- Plaintiffs—San Luis Unit Food Producers and landowners—allege 15 Reclamation statues require water service, exercise of water rights, and sale of water to recoup project costs.
- Defendants challenge standing, sovereign immunity, and APA review, arguing no final agency action and no waiver of immunity; they seek judgment on the pleadings.
- Water deliveries to Unit farmers have been reduced in recent years due to hydrology, Delta pumping constraints, and compliance with D-1641 and ESA requirements.
- The court addresses whether plaintiffs have standing, the APA final agency action requirement, exhaustion of remedies, statute of limitations, and laches, and whether any relief is available.
- The court ultimately grants defendants’ judgment on the pleadings on standing and final agency action, and grants exhaustion and laches in plaintiffs’ favor; grants summary judgment to defendants on the claims overall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Article III and APA | Food Producers have injury-in-fact from reduced water; causal link to Bureau; zone-of-interest within statutes. | No concrete rights; no direct injury; no redressable harm under the cited statutes; no privity or cognizable injury. | Plaintiffs lack standing; summary judgment for Defendants on standing. |
| APA final agency action and agency duty | Statutes impose mandatory duties to operate, exercise water rights, and sell water. | No final agency action mandating specific volumes; CVPIA permits negotiated, discretionary operation. | No final agency action; APA waiver not satisfied; summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Exhaustion not expressly required; claims should be reviewable in court. | Exhaustion required where statute or agency rule governs review. | Exhaustion defense granted; claims dismissed for exhaustion. |
| Statute of limitations and laches | Claims continuing violation or ultra vires; limitations not a bar. | Six-year limit applies; continuing violation not extended to APA claims; Wind River not applicable. | Limitations not applicable to continue; laches defense granted; limitations summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements; three-part test; burden on plaintiff)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (final agency action; agency action must be mandatory and concrete)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (statutory interpretation; avoid absurd results; full statutory mandate)
- Farrakhan v. Gregoire, 590 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2010) (standing not dependent on merits; but issues related to standing exist)