San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4256
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Farmers sue under the APA seeking an order compelling the Bureau to deliver more San Luis Unit water for irrigation.
- District court granted judgment for Bureau on several grounds, including lack of final action and sovereign immunity.
- Court applies SUWA framework: broad programmatic challenges to how the Bureau operates CVP are not reviewable under the APA.
- Statutes cited by Farmers are interpreted as not mandating discrete nondiscretionary actions; the Bureau retains discretion in allocation.
- CVPIA re-prioritizes CVP purposes and requires meeting all legal obligations, not delivering a fixed irrigation quantity to Farmers.
- Firebaugh Canal and related precedents illustrate limited relief where statutes do not impose a discrete action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APA §706(1) review permits a failure-to-act challenge to a broad program | Farmers assert Bureau failed to act to deliver irrigation water | Bureau discretion prevents discrete final action | No discrete action; programmatic challenge not reviewable |
| Whether statutes impose a mandatory duty to deliver Farmers’ preferred water amount | Statutes require full irrigation before other uses | Statutes authorize discretion in allocation | No mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to deliver a fixed amount |
| Whether section 8 and California Water Code impose a duty to adjust use rights | Bureau must avoid injury to Farmers by increasing irrigation | No discrete action mandated by those provisions | No discrete action; no court-ordered increase in irrigation water |
| Whether recoupment and cost-recovery provisions compel a higher irrigation delivery | Recoupment statutes pressure more irrigation water | Discretion preserved for how to recoup costs | Recoupment statutes do not compel discrete action; claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court 2004) (failure-to-act review limited to discrete actions under §706(1))
- Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (Supreme Court 2005) (context of Reclamation Act and water rights)
- California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (Supreme Court 1978) (state law incorporation into federal reclamation actions)
- Firebaugh Canal Co. v. United States, 203 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2000) (mandatory drainage duty analysis under San Luis Act)
- Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2007) (lacks jurisdiction where no discrete nondiscretionary act)
- Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where no discrete action)
- Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (context on CVP allocation and rights)
- Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999) (beneficiary rights in reclamation contracts)