San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke
| Decision Date | 22 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | 12–15296.,12–15293,Nos. 12–15144,12–15291,12–15289,12–15290,s. 12–15144 |
| Citation | San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014) |
| Parties | SAN LUIS & DELTA–MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY; Westlands Water District; Stockton East Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Oakdale Irrigation District; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; Kern County Water Agency; Coalition for a Sustainable Delta; State Water Contractors, Plaintiffs–Appellees, California Department of Water Resources, Intervenor–Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Gary LOCKE; United States Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; James W. Balsiger; Rodney R. McInnis; U.S. Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor; Donald R. Glaser; Jane Lubchenco; Sally Jewell, Defendants, and The Bay Institute; California Trout; Friends of the River; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers; San Francisco Baykeeper; Sacramento River Preservation Trust; Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Institute for Fisheries Research, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellants. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District, Plaintiffs–Appellants, and Stockton East Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Oakdale Irrigation District; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; Kern County Water Agency; Coalition for a Sustainable Delta; State Water Contractors, Plaintiffs, California Department of Water Resources, Intervenor–Plaintiff, v. Gary Locke; United States Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; James W. Balsiger; Rodney R. McInnis; U.S. Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor; Donald R. Glaser; Jane Lubchenco; Sally Jewell, Defendants–Appellees, The Bay Institute; California Trout; Friends of The River; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers; San Francisco Baykeeper; Sacramento River Preservation Trust; Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Institute for Fisheries Research, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellees. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District; Stockton East Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Oakdale Irrigation District; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; Kern County Water Agency; Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, Plaintiffs, California Department of Water Resources, Intervenor–Plaintiff, and State Water Contractors, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Gary Locke; United States Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; James W. Balsiger; Rodney R. McInnis; U.S. Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor; Donald R. Glaser; Jane Lubchenco; Sally Jewell, Defendants–Appellees, The Bay Institute; California Trout; Friends of the River; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers; San Francisco Baykeeper; Sacramento River Preservation Trust; Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Institute for Fisheries Research, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellees. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District; Stockton East Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Oakdale Irrigation District; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; State Water Contractors, Plaintiffs, California Department of Water Resources, Intervenor–Plaintiff, and Kern County Water Agency; Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Gary Locke; United States Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; James W. Balsiger; Rodney R. McInnis; U.S. Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor; Donald R. Glaser; Jane Lubchenco; Sally Jewell, Defendants–Appellees, The Bay Institute; California Trout; Friends of the River; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers; San Francisco Baykeeper; Sacramento River Preservation Trust; Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Institute for Fisheries Research, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellees. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District; Stockton East Water District; Oakdale Irrigation District; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; State Water Contractors; Kern County Water Agency; Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, Plaintiffs, California Department of Water Resources, Intervenor–Plaintiff, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Gary Locke; United States Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; James W. Balsiger; Rodney R. McInnis; U.S. Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor; Donald R. Glaser; Jane Lubchenco; Sally Jewell, Defendants–Appellees, The Bay Institute; California Trout; Friends of the River; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northern California Council of the Federation Of Fly Fishers; San Francisco Baykeeper; Sacramento River Preservation Trust; Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Institute for Fisheries Research, Intervenor–Defendants–Appellees. San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District; Stockton East Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Oakdale Irrigation District; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; Kern County Water Agency; Coalition for a Sustainable Delta; State Water Contractors, Plaintiffs–Appellees, California Department of Water Resources, Intervenor–Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Gary Locke; United States Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; James W. Balsiger; Rodney R. McInnis; U.S. Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor; Donald R. Glaser; Jane Lubchenco; Sally Jewell, Defendants–Appellants, and The Bay Institute; California Trout; Friends of the River; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers; San Francisco Baykeeper; Sacramento River Preservation Trust; Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc., Institute for Fisheries Research, Intervenor–Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. Rebecca Rose Akroyd, Daniel J. O'Hanlon, Hanspeter Walter, Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann, & Girard, PC, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellees/Cross–Appellants San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District.
David A. Diepenbrock, Eileen M. Diepenbrock, and Jonathan R. Marz, Diepenbrock Elkin LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellees/Cross-Appellants San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District.
Jon D. Rubin, General Counsel, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant San Luis & Delta–Mendota Water Authority.
Robert D. Thornton and Paul S. Weiland, Nossaman LLP, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant Kern County Water Agency and Plaintiff–Appellee Coalition for a Sustainable Delta.
Amelia T. Minaberrigarai, General Counsel, Bakersfield, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant Kern County Water Agency.
Martha F. Bauer, Mark J. Mathews, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Denver, CO; Steve Sims, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico; David Longly Bernhardt (argued), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Harold Craig Manson, General Counsel, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant Westlands Water District.
Tim O'Laughlin and William C. Paris, III, O'Laughlin & Paris LLP, for Plaintiffs–Appellees Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District.
Steven M. Anderson, Melissa R. Cushman, Steven G. Martin, and Gregory K. Wilkinson, Best Best & Krieger, LLP, Riverside, CA; Paeter E. Garcia, Best Best & Krieger LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellees State Water Contractors.
Alexis K. Galbraith, Karna Elizabeth Harrigfeld, Jennifer Lynn Spaletta, and Jeanne M. Zolezzi, Herum Crabtree, Stockton, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee Stockton East Water District.
Christopher J. Carr and William M. Sloan (argued), Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA; Linus Masouredis, Chief Deputy General Counsel, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA.
Michael M. Edson, Allison Goldsmith, Daniel S. Harris, Clifford T. Lee (argued), Deputy Attorneys General–Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Intervenor–Plaintiff–Appellee California Department of Water Resources.
Ellen J. Durkee (argued) and Bridget McNeil, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Department of the Interior, and United States Bureau of Reclamation.
Michael R. Sherwood, Erin M. Tobin, Trent W. Orr and George Matthew Torgun, Earthjustice, San Francisco, CA, for Intervenor–Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, Institute for Fisheries Research, The Bay Institute, California Trout, Friends of the River, Northern California Counsel of the Federation of Fly Fishers, San Francisco Baykeeper, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, Winnemem Wintu Tribe.
Katherine S. Poole (argued) and Douglas A. Obegi, San Francisco,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke
-
Amalgamated Transit Union v. United States Dep't of Labor
...complied with the APA's requirement that the agency's decision be neither arbitrary nor capricious." San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 993 (9th Cir. 2014). The reviewing court may not admit the evidence "to judge the wisdom of the agency's action." Id. The party s......
-
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Haaland
...of the Central Valley Project (CVP), "the largest federal water management project in the United States," San Luis & Delta-Mendota Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 984 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted), and Reclamation's decades-long history of obtaining the necessary environmental approvals ......
-
Defenders of Wildlife v. US Forest Service
...and State Farm standards, we can and should look to the entire administrative record. See, e.g., San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 994, 996 (9th Cir. 2014). The administrative record is consistent with the FWS's a) Theobald and Shenk Study map The 2021 BiOp's desc......
-
Endnotes
...the plaintiff must illustrate that an indirect effect is “caused by the action” (citing San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014)). 253 Id. at 1225 (examining whether the action was an interrelated or interdependent action). 254 Id. at 1225-26. 25......
-
Judicial Challenges to Federal Agency Action
...existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.’” (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973)). 240. 776 F.3d 971, 992 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). 241. Id. at 93; see also Fence Creek Cattle Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 602 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2010) (r......
-
Table of Cases
...2018), 158 n.54 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2014), 353 n.226 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2014), 38 Save Our Cmty. v. EPA, 971 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1992), 308 n.82, 311 n.100 Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark,......