San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Haugrud
| Decision Date | 21 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-17539, No. 14-17515,No. 14-17493, No. 14-17506,14-17493 |
| Citation | 848 F.3d 1216 |
| Parties | SAN LUIS & DELTA–MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY; Westlands Water District, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Kevin HAUGRUD,as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; David Murillo, as Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; David Murillo, as Regional Director, Mid–Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Defendants, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations ; Institute for Fisheries Resources; Yurok Tribe, Intervenor–Defendants, and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Intervenor–Defendant–Appellant. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Kevin Haugrud, as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; David Murillo, as Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; David Murillo, as Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Defendants–Appellants, and Hoopa Valley Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations ; Institute for Fisheries Resources; Yurok Tribe, Intervenor–Defendants. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Kevin Haugrud, as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; David Murillo, as Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; David Murillo, as Regional Director, Mid–Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Defendants, Hoopa Valley Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations ; Institute for Fisheries Resources, Intervenor–Defendants, and Yurok Tribe, Intervenor–Defendant–Appellant. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Kevin Haugrud, as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; David Murillo, as Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; David Murillo, as Regional Director, Mid–Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Defendants–Appellees, Hoopa Valley Tribe; Yurok Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations ; Institute for Fisheries Resources, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Daniel J. O'Hanlon (argued), Rebecca R. Akroyd, and Elizabeth L. Leeper, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard, Sacramento, California; Steven O. Sims and Dulcinea Z. Hanuschak, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Denver, Colorado; for Plaintiffs–Appellees/Cross–Appellants San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District.
Ellen J. Durkee (argued), Bradley H. Oliphant, and Anna K. Stimmel, Attorneys; John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Stephen Palmer, Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Sacramento, California; Carter Brown, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees Kevin Haugrud, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and David Murillo.
Thomas P. Schlosser (argued) and Thane D. Somerville, Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville APC, Seattle, Washington, for Intervenor–Defendant–Appellant/Cross–Appellee Hoopa Valley Tribe.
Amy Cordalis and Nathan Voegeli, General Counsel, Yurok Tribe, Klamath, California; Daniel I.S.J. Rey–Bear, Nordhaus Law Firm LLP, Spokane, Washington; for Intervenor–Defendant–Appellant/Cross–Appellee Yurok Tribe.
Jan E. Hasselman, Earthjustice, Seattle, Washington, for Intervenor-Defendants Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and Institute of Fisheries Resources.
Before: Alex Kozinski and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, and Sharon L. Gleason,** District Judge.
In late summer 2013, the Bureau of Reclamation ("BOR") released Trinity River water from the Lewiston Dam, above and beyond the amount designated in the applicable water release schedule (a schedule that was devised to benefit only the Trinity River basin). That water flowed down the Trinity River and into the lower Klamath River, where winter-run salmon were beginning their migration upriver to their spawning grounds. BOR released the water to help prevent a mass die-off of these salmon in the lower Klamath, which are threatened when the Klamath River runs low. BOR asserted that the Act of August 12, 1955, ("1955 Act") gave it the power to release this extra water. The 1955 Act "authorized and directed" the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior ("DOI") "to adopt appropriate measures to insure the preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife." We agree with BOR. The broad language of this clause gave BOR the authority to implement the 2013 water release.
In implementing the 2013 water release, BOR also did not violate the Central Valley Project Improvement Act or California water law (and correspondingly the Reclamation Act of 1902, which requires agencies to comply with state water law), as alleged by Cross-Appellants San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District. Finally, Cross–Appellants lack standing to pursue their Endangered Species Act claim.
The Trinity River begins in the Trinity Alps of Northern California. The river runs south and then wends its way northwest, picking up tributaries along the way. It eventually flows into the Klamath River at the town of Weitchpec. The water then flows approximately forty-four additional miles down the lower Klamath before entering the Pacific Ocean.
The Trinity River was once known for its abundant populations of salmon and steelhead. Before the construction of dams on the Trinity, up to 75,000 fall-run Chinook salmon are estimated to have migrated from the Pacific Ocean to the North Fork of the Trinity River each year. The Yurok and Hoopa Valley Indian Tribes (living along the Klamath and Trinity Rivers) have relied on the fish as their primary dietary staple. In recognition of the Tribes' rights to harvest these fish, the federal government established reservations for the Tribes in the mid-1800s that endure to this day. The Trinity River bisects the Hoopa Valley Reservation, and the lower Klamath River bisects the Yurok Reservation.
At the same time, water management has always been a central concern for the state of California. For as long as it has been a state, California has adopted laws to manage its water resources. In the early 1920s, California began drafting a comprehensive, statewide water plan. California recognized that, while most of its water resources were located in the northern part of the state, the majority of the demand came from the state's southern regions. In addition, the population's demand for water did not align with the seasonal rainfalls and snow melt. With its statewide plan, California hoped to control salinity and flooding, while managing the storage and distribution of water. One of the primary goals of the plan was to transfer water from the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin Valley and from the San Joaquin River to the southern regions of the Central Valley, the heart of California's farmland. In 1933, the California Legislature authorized this statewide plan, known as the Central Valley Project ("CVP"). Because the state was unable to fully fund the plan, the United States took over in 1935. Construction of what would become the largest federally managed water project began in 1937. See generally San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell , 747 F.3d 581, 594 (9th Cir. 2014) ; Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States , 306 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd. , 182 Cal.App.3d 82, 227 Cal.Rptr. 161, 166 (1986) ; Eric A. Stene, The Central Valley Project , BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (last updated Aug. 4, 2015), https://www.usbr.gov/history/cvpintro.html.
California's statewide water plan originally included plans to divert water from the Trinity River to the Central Valley. Although these initial plans were abandoned before the CVP was authorized, Congress began re-investigating the possibility in the 1940s. During this investigation, DOI estimated that more than 1.1 million acre-feet of water flowed from the upper Trinity River basin each year.1 Reports suggested that only 120,500 acre-feet of water were needed to maintain the fishery resources of the Trinity and Lewiston Rivers. These reports also suggested that the construction of dams on the Trinity would actually help the fishery resources. Congress ultimately concluded that 700,000 acre-feet of the Trinity's annual flow was being lost to the Pacific Ocean and could be diverted to the Central Valley without harming the Trinity or lower Klamath Rivers. Accordingly, in 1955, Congress authorized the construction of the Trinity River division ("TRD"), an addition to the CVP in Northern California. Act of Aug. 12, 1955, Pub. L. No. 84–386 § 1, 69 Stat. 719, 719 (1955). The purpose of the TRD was to divert water from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River "for irrigation and other beneficial uses in the Central Valley." Id. Nevertheless, Congress designed the TRD "with a view to maintaining and improving fishery conditions," which were an important asset to "the whole north coastal area." H.R. Rep. No. 84–602, at 4 (1955). Accordingly, in the 1955 Act, Congress specifically directed the Secretary of DOI to preserve and propagate fish and wildlife. § 2, 69 Stat. at 719.
Under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Californians for Renewable Energy v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency & Scott Pruitt
...it is reasonably probable that the challenged action will threaten their concrete interests.'" San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Haugrud ("Haugrud"), 848 F.3d 1216, 1232 (9th Cir. 2017) (alterations in original, citations omitted). In its reply, the EPA attacks Plaintiffs' claim of pr......
-
City of Seattle v. Monsanto Co.
...an "allegation that third-party agencies [would] eventually impose more regulations on [a party] [was] speculative at best." 848 F.3d 1216, 1233 (9th Cir. 2017), as corrected (Mar. 23, 2017). The only evidence offered in that case was a declaration regarding past regulations, which the Cour......
-
Aqualliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
...Auth. v. Jewell , 52 F.Supp.3d 1020, 1068–69 (E.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Auth. v. Haugrud , 848 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017), as corrected (Mar. 23, 2017). California "has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in th......
-
Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
...softened when a plaintiff asserts a violation of a procedural right" conferred by a federal statute, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Haugrud , 848 F.3d 1216, 1232 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), because "the causation and redressability requirements ......
-
Targeting Public Trust Suits
...52 F. Supp. 3d 1020, 1026, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom., San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Haugrud, 848 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017) ("California Fish & Game Code § 5937 codifies one aspect of the public trust doctrine"); Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United......