Wild Fish Conservancy v. Kenneth Salazar
730 F.3d 791
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hatchery on Icicle Creek (Hatchery Canal) diverts water via structure 2, affecting Historic Channel and fish passage.
- Hatchery operations date to 1941; water gates at structure 2 determine whether flow goes down Historic Channel or Hatchery Canal.
- Conservancy sues, asserting Hatchery operation violates Washington water code and section 8 of the Reclamation Act; seeks APA review.
- District court granted summary judgment; held Conservancy’s claims untimely and potentially abstain under primary jurisdiction; court did not reach merits.
- Court considers whether Conservancy has prudential standing to challenge federal compliance with state water/fishway laws and whether claims are final agency actions.
- Court ultimately dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, holding no prudential standing and no final agency action under the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prudential standing under §8 | Conservancy seeks to enforce state water law rights via §8. | Washington assigns enforcement to Ecology; Conservancy lacks enforcement rights. | Conservancy lacks prudential standing. |
| Incorporation of fishway law under §8 | Fishway provisions are incorporated under §8 to enforce state water law. | Fishway provisions do not relate to control/appropriation/use of water; not incorporated. | No §8 incorporation of fishway claims. |
| APA finality/jurisdiction over day-to-day Hatchery operations | Day-to-day closures of gates at structure 2 violate state and federal law; actionable under APA. | Actions are day-to-day operational decisions not final agency actions; not reviewable. | No final agency action; no APA jurisdiction over this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (section 8 cooperates with state water laws; avoids constitutional issues)
- Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 498 U.S. 517 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (zone of interests test; framework for prudential standing)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (final agency action standard; agency action must mark consummation of decisionmaking)
- Nev. Land Action Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1993) (prudential standing; zone of interests when interests are marginally related)
- Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1997) (context on final agency action and APA review)
- San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013) (state-federal interaction under §8; incorporation principles)
- Northwest Renewable Resources Information Center v. Northwest Power Planning Council, 35 F.3d 1371 (9th Cir. 1994) (Columbia River basin context; environmental-hydropower tensions)