Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. United States Department of the Interior
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13417
9th Cir.2013Background
- Canal Authority seeks priority water rights under CVP contracts in the Sacramento Valley and sues Interior, the Bureau, San Luis and Westlands for injunctive/declaratory relief.
- District court granted summary judgment for Interior, Bureau, San Luis, and Westlands; this court affirms on alternate basis that California Water Code § 11460 does not compel priority for Canal Authority.
- CVP operates as an integrated system under a coordination with DWR; CVP water is allocated via Bureau contracts, not SWRCB water rights permits.
- In drought years 2008 and 2009, north-of-Delta contractors generally received more water than south-of-Delta contractors; Canal Authority’s members are north-of-Delta.
- Renewal contracts (2005) for Canal Authority members include shortage provisions allowing Bureau to allocate water pro rata during shortages; no area-of-origin priority language was included or requested.
- Canal Authority members obtained state-court validations of renewal contracts; after validation, challenges to contract terms are foreclosed under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWC § 11460 requires priority water allocations for Canal Authority. | Canal Authority argues §11460 guarantees priority for area of origin. | Bureau/Interior contend §11460 does not grant priority in CVP contract deliveries. | No, §11460 does not compel priority under these contracts. |
| Whether renewal contracts foreclose challenges based on area-of-origin/priority theories. | Canal Authority argues renewal terms violate area-of-origin protections. | Bureau did not include area-of-origin provisions and contract validations do not bar later challenges. | Yes, challenges foreclosed after contract validation; provisions valid. |
| Whether renewal contracts properly limit Canal Authority’s rights during shortages. | Canal Authority contends full contract rights must be honored in shortages. | Article 12 allows pro rata reductions to maximize overall benefits during shortages. | Article 12 permits shortages and pro rata allocations. |
| Whether the Bureau’s shortage allocations under the San Luis Act were proper. | San Luis Act requires preferential treatment for origin areas. | Bureau followed its interpretation that origin preferences do not govern CVP contract deliveries. | Yes, allocation consistent with law and contract terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westlands Water Dist. v. Firebaugh Canal, 10 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1993) (Bureau not bound to satisfy needs of all contractors when San Luis Act not mandate)
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. United States, 672 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2012) (Review of agency action under APA; upheld Bureau discretion in allocations)
- Fontana Redev. Agency v. Torres, 153 Cal.App.4th 902 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2007) (Courts cannot validate ongoing illegality; issues with validity of agreements)
- El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. SWRCB, 142 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. App. 2006) (Area of origin may not guarantee stored water rights; origin claims limited by CVP contracts)
- SWRCB Cases, 136 Cal.App.4th 674 (Cal. App. 2006) (Interpretation of §11460 tempered by subsequent California decisions; not controlling for CVP contract allocations)