Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-17493/USCOURTS-ca9-14-17493-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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;

No. 14-17493

D.C. No.

1:13-cv-01232-

LJO-GSA

* Kevin Haugrud and David Murillo are substituted for their

predecessors, Sally Jewell and Michael L. Connor, as Acting Secretary of

the U.S. Department of the Interior and Acting Commissioner, Bureau of

Reclamation, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(c)(2).

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 1 of 38
2 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

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

No. 14-17506

D.C. No.

1:13-cv-01232-

LJO-GSA

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 2 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 3

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,

No. 14-17515

D.C. No.

1:13-cv-01232-

LJO-GSA

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 3 of 38
4 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

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.

No. 14-17539

D.C. No.

1:13-cv-01232-

LJO-GSA

OPINION

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 4 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 5

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 12, 2016

San Francisco, California

Filed February 21, 2017

Before: Alex Kozinski and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges,

and Sharon L. Gleason,**

 District Judge.

Opinion by Judge N.R. Smith

SUMMARY***

Environmental Law / Water Rights

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district

court’s judgment, and held that the Bureau of Reclamation

had the authority to implement the 2013 release of Trinity

River water from the Lewiston Dam, above and beyond the

amount designated in the applicable water release schedule.

Reversing the district court, the panel held that the Act of

August 12, 1955, gave the Bureau the authority to implement

** The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for

the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 5 of 38
6 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

the 2013 flow augmentation release to protect fish in the

lower Klamath River. Affirming the district court, the panel

also held that the 2013 flow augmentation release did not

violate Central Valley Project Improvement Act (“CVPIA”)

section 3406(b)(23), which called for a permanent water

release that would serve only the Trinity River basin. The

panel further held that the 2013 flow augmentation release

did not violate California water law and, in turn, did not

violate the Reclamation Act of 1902 or CVPIA section

3411(a), both of which require the Bureau to comply with

state water permitting requirements.

The panel did not reach the merits of an Endangered

Species Act claim because the plaintiff water contractors did

not have standing to pursue that claim. The panel held that the

water contractors lacked standing because they did not

demonstrate that the Bureau’s alleged failure to conduct a

Section 7 consultation for Endangered Species Act-listed fish

species would threaten their economic interests.

COUNSEL

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,

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 6 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 7

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/CrossAppellee 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 IntervenorDefendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Yurok Tribe.

OPINION

N.R. SMITH, Circuit 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

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 7 of 38
8 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

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 & DeltaMendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District. 

Finally, Cross-Appellants lack standing to pursue their

Endangered Species Act claim.

BACKGROUND

I.

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 forty 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

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 8 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 9

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., 227 Cal. Rptr. 161,

166 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986); Eric A. Stene, The Central Valley

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 9 of 38
10 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

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

1 An “acre-foot” is a unit of volume “equal to the amount of water it

would take to fill an acre [of land] to a foot-deep level—approximately

326,000 gallons. An average household uses between one-half and one

acre-foot of water in a year.” Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of

Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 861 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004).

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 10 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 11

the 1955 Act, Congress specifically directed the Secretary of

DOI to preserve and propagate fish and wildlife. § 2, 69 Stat.

at 719.

Under the authority granted by the 1955 Act, BOR

constructed two dams along the Trinity River: the Trinity and

the Lewiston. The Trinity Dam blocks water flowing from

the upper Trinity River, and several other tributaries, and

forms Trinity Reservoir.2 After passing through Trinity Dam,

water flows approximately eight miles downstream before

reaching Lewiston Dam, which forms Lewiston Reservoir. 

At Lewiston Dam, the water either continues flowing down

the Trinity River, or BOR diverts it toward the Sacramento

River (via the Clear Creek Tunnel) for use in the CVP. If

diverted, the water passes through several additional dams

before reaching the Sacramento River. Water that is not

diverted at the Lewiston Dam continues to flow down the

Trinity River. As it did before the dams were constructed, the

water eventually passes through the Hoopa Valley Indian

Reservation and into the Klamath River at the town of

Weitchpec. The water then flows forty miles down the lower

Klamath and through the Yurok Indian Reservation until it

reaches the Pacific Ocean.

The TRD became fully operational in 1964. For the next

ten years, BOR diverted an average of 88 percent of Trinity

River annual inflow to the Sacramento River basin.

2 This body of water has been referred to both as Trinity Lake and

Trinity Reservoir. Similarly, the body of water created by Lewiston Dam

has been referred to both as Lewiston Lake and Lewiston Reservoir.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 11 of 38
12 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

II.

The construction and operation of the TRD had

devastating effects on the Trinity River environment and fish

populations. Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,

376 F.3d 853, 862 (9th Cir. 2004). The dams blocked

significant upstream fish habitat. Id. The low flows caused

the Trinity River to narrow and the banks to steepen, resulting

in increasingly fast and uniform water velocities. Id. These

effects destroyed resting pools and vital spawning grounds. 

Id. Within a decade, the TRD had significantly diminished

the salmon and steelhead populations in the Trinity River. Id.

at 861–62.

A. Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force

In response to the effects of the TRD, the Trinity River

Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force (“TRBFW Task Force”

or “Task Force”) formed in the early 1970s. The Task Force

was comprised of federal, state, and local agencies. It studied

the impact of the TRD and it worked to develop a plan for the

long-term management of the fish population and habitat in

the Trinity River basin.

B. Secretarial Decision of 1981

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, in recognition and

support of the Task Force, the Fish and Wildlife Service

(“FWS”), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Water and

Power Resources Service studied the effects of increased

water releases from the Lewiston Dam into the Trinity River. 

The agencies drafted an Environmental Impact Statement

(“EIS”) that considered eight alternative water release

schedules. The agencies agreed that the best alternative was

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 12 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 13

to begin water releases from the Lewiston Dam at 287,000

acre-feet annually, and incrementally increase this flow to

340,000 acre-feet annually in normal years. BOR would

release less water in dry years. The agencies also agreed to

study and draft a report on the effect of restoration flows

during the first twelve years of the revised flow releases

(“Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study”). In 1981, thenSecretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, gave legal effect to

this agreement in a Secretarial Decision.

C. Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act

of 1984

In 1984,Congress passed the Trinity River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Management Act (“1984 Act”). Pub. L. No. 98-541,

98 Stat. 2721 (1984). The 1984 Act directed the Secretary to

“formulate and implement a fish and wildlife management

program for the Trinity River Basin designed to restore the

fish and wildlife populations” to pre-TRD levels. Id. § 2,

98 Stat. at 2722. The 1984 Act also officially recognized the

TRBFW Task Force. Id. § 3, 98 Stat. at 2722–23.

D. Central Valley Project Improvement Act

In 1992, Congress enacted the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act (“CVPIA”). Pub. L. No. 102-575

§§ 3401–12, 106 Stat. 4600, 4706–31 (1992). Among other

things, the CVPIA sought “to protect, restore, and enhance

fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley

and Trinity River basins,” while also seeking “to achieve a

reasonable balance among competing demands for use of

Central Valley Project water.” Id. § 3402(a), (f), 106 Stat. at

4706.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 13 of 38
14 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

Section 3406(b)(23) (at issue here), provided for water

releases “to the Trinity River of not less than 340,000 acrefeet per year” from 1992 through 1996. 106 Stat. at 4720. It

also directed DOI to “complete the Trinity River Flow

Evaluation Study” (required by the 1981 Secretarial

Decision) by September 30, 1996. Id. § 3406(b)(23)(A), 106

Stat. at 4720. DOI was to complete the study “in a manner

which insures the development of recommendations, based on

the best available scientific data, regarding permanent

instream fishery flow requirements.” Id. If the Secretary of

the Interior and the Hoopa Valley Tribe agreed on the study’s

recommendations, then the recommendations were to “be

implemented accordingly.” Id. § 3406(b)(23)(B), 106 Stat. at

4720–21. “If the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Secretary [did]

not concur, the minimum Trinity River instream fishery

releases established under [section 3406(b)(23) were to]

remain in effect unless increased by an Act of Congress,

appropriate judicial decree, or agreement between the

Secretary and the Hoopa Valley Tribe.” Id.

E. Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management

Reauthorization Act

In 1996, Congress enacted the Trinity River Basin Fish

and Wildlife Management Reauthorization Act (“1996

Reauthorization Act”), which amended the 1984 Act and

“extend[ed] for three years the availability of moneys for the

restoration of fish and wildlife in the Trinity River.” Trinity

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Reauthorization

Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-143, 110 Stat. 1338, 1338

(1996). The 1984 Act had provided for “[t]he design,

construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities to . . .

rehabilitate fish habitats in the Trinity River between

Lewiston Dam and Weitchpec.” § 2(a)(1)(A), 98 Stat. at

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 14 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 15

2722. Among other things, the 1996 Reauthorization Act

replaced “Weitchpec” with, “Weitchpec and in the Klamath

River downstream of the confluence with the Trinity River.” 

§ 3(b), 110 Stat. at 1339.

F. The 2000 Record of Decision

As directed by the 1981 Secretarial Decision and CVPIA

section 3406(b)(23)(A), FWS biologists conducted flow

evaluation studies annually from 1983 to 1994. In June of

1999, FWS and the Hoopa Valley Tribe released the Final

Report for the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study.3 A few

months later, BOR, the Hoopa Valley Tribe, FWS, and

Trinity County issued a Draft Trinity River MainstemFishery

Restoration Environmental Impact Statement/Report. The

EIS “addresse[d] the environmental issues, alternatives, and

impacts associated with restoration of the natural production

of anadromous fish on the Trinity River mainstem

downstream of Lewiston Dam.” The EIS identified and

analyzed four alternative actions and identified a “Preferred

Alternative.” In a Record of Decision (“2000 ROD”), DOI

adopted the Preferred Alternative, finding it to be the “action

which best meets the statutory and trust obligations [to the

Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes] of the Department to restore

and maintain the Trinity River’s anadromous fishery

resources.”

Under the Preferred Alternative, BOR would, among

other things, release a designated amount of water from the

Lewiston Dam into the Trinity River each year, based on that

3 FWS and the Hoopa Valley Tribe prepared the Final Report in

consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey, BOR, National Marine

Fisheries Service, and California Department of Fish and Game.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 15 of 38
16 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

year’s hydrology. This amount would range from 369,000

acre-feet in critically dry years to 815,000 acre-feet in

extremely wet years.

III.

In September 2002, two fish pathogens, Ich and

Columnaris, caused approximately 34,000 fish to die in the

Klamath River. These pathogens are normally present in the

river, but a combination of factors caused the pathogens to

proliferate and become lethal. The low river flow that year

was not attractive to migrating adult salmon, so the salmon

congregated in the warm waters of the lower Klamath River. 

The low flows, warm water temperatures, and high density of

fish triggered an epizootic of Ich and Columnaris that spread

throughout the fish population.

In April 2003, Judge Oliver Wanger of the Eastern

District of California issued an order permitting BOR to

release 50,000 additional acre-feet of water from the

Lewiston Dam (above the annual instream flow release set by

the 2000 ROD) to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the

2002 fish die-off. To ensure that this “flow augmentation

release” would have no impact on the CVP water users, BOR

entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Water

District of Los Angeles to exchange water from the Trinity

Reservoir for non-CVP deliveries. In August 2003, BOR

notified the Eastern District of California of its plan to release

33,000 acre-feet of water from the Lewiston Dam as a

preventative measure, while holding the additional 17,000

acre-feet of water in case an emergency release was needed.

In 2004, BOR notified the Eastern District of California

of its plan to release an additional 36,300 acre-feet of water

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 16 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 17

in late summer, again to prevent another fish die-off. BOR

had 11,313 acre-feet of water left over from its 2003

exchange with the Metropolitan Water District of Los

Angeles. BOR also purchased 25,000 acre-feet of water from

willing sellers in the Sacramento River Water Contractors

Association to cover the remaining water needed for the 2004

flow augmentation release.

Over the next eight years, conditions improved such that

BOR did not find it necessary to augment the river flow. 

Then, in 2012, BOR predicted that the fall-run of adult

salmon in the Klamath basin would be incredibly large (the

largest since it began keeping records in 1978), while the

flows in the Klamath River would be relatively low. 

Accordingly, in order to prevent another potential fish die-off,

BOR studied and proposed a flow augmentation release of an

additional 48,000 acre-feet from the Lewiston Dam. BOR

drafted an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and a Finding

of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), concluding that an EIS

was not required because the flow augmentation release

would not significantly impact the quality of the human

environment. In the Final EA for the 2012 flow

augmentation release, BOR stated that the 1955 Act

“provide[d] the principle authorization for implementing” the

release. BOR ultimately released an additional 39,000 acrefeet of water in 2012.

In 2013, BOR proposed releasing an additional 62,000

acre-feet of water from the Lewiston Dam in the late summer

to reduce the likelihood of a mass fish die-off in the lower

Klamath River. The agency drafted an EA and a FONSI for

the proposed release, again concluding that an EIS was not

required. On August 6, 2013, BOR issued the Final EA and

FONSI for the 2013 flow augmentation release. BOR also

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 17 of 38
18 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

concluded again in its Final EA for the 2013 flow

augmentation release that the 1955 Act “provide[d] the

principal authorization” for the release. Due in part to the

current legal action, BOR ultimately released only 17,500

acre-feet during the 2013 flow augmentation release.

IV.

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority is an agency

comprised of local water districts in central California that

hold contracts for CVP water. Westlands Water District is a

member of this joint agency (collectively “the Water

Contractors”). On August 7, 2013, the day following BOR’s

issuance of the Final EA and FONSI for the 2013 flow

augmentation release, the Water Contractors filed suit against

BOR, DOI, and several individuals working within these

agencies (“Federal Defendants”). Two days later, the Water

Contractors filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

and a preliminary injunction to halt the 2013 flow

augmentation release, which was scheduled to take place

between August 15 and September 21, 2013. The Hoopa

Valley Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, the Pacific Coast Federation

of Fishermen’s Association, and the Institute for Fisheries

Resources promptly moved to intervene, and the district court

permitted them to intervene as defendants. On August 13,

2013, the district court temporarily “enjoin[ed] the Federal

Defendants from making releases from Lewiston Dam to the

Trinity River in excess of 450 cubic feet per second for

fishery purposes through and including August 16, 2013.” 

However, after holding a hearing on the matter, the district

court lifted this temporary restraining order and denied the

motion for preliminary injunction.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 18 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 19

The Water Contractors filed an amended complaint on

October 4, 2013, alleging that Federal Defendants violated

the following four statutes in implementing the 2012 and

2013 flow augmentation releases4: (1) the Endangered

Species Act (“ESA”); (2) the National Environmental

Protection Act (“NEPA”); (3) CVPIA § 3411(a) and

43 U.S.C. § 383; and (4) CVPIA § 3406(b)(23). Several

months later, the parties filed cross-motions for summary

judgment.

On October 1, 2014, the district court issued a

Memorandum Decision resolving these motions as follows: 

(1) the Water Contractors lacked standing to bring their ESA

claim; (2) the NEPA claim was moot; (3) the 2013 flow

augmentation release did not violate CVPIA § 3411(a) or

43 U.S.C. § 383; and (4) the 2013 flow augmentation release

did not violate CVPIA § 3406(b)(23) or the 2000 ROD. San

Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 52 F. Supp. 3d

1020, 1069–70. (E.D. Cal. 2014). Accordingly, the district

court granted summary judgment in favor of Federal

Defendants on all four claims in the first amended complaint. 

Id. However, the district court also concluded that the 1955

Act did “not provide authorization for Federal Defendants to

implement the 2013 flow augmentation release[] to benefit

fish in the lower Klamath.” Id. at 1070.

4 The amended complaint purports to challenge the 2012 flow

augmentation release. However, the 2012 release was largely ignored in

the parties’ briefing and in the district court’s orders and judgment. The

material facts of the 2012 and 2013 flow augmentation releases are almost

identical and the omission of a discussion of the 2012 release does not

alter the analysis in this case. Accordingly, this Opinion focuses on the

2013 flow augmentation release.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 19 of 38
20 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

Federal Defendants and the Hoopa Valley and Yurok

Tribes filed timely notices of appeal of the district court’s

ruling regarding the 1955 Act. Shortly thereafter, the Water

Contractors filed a timely notice of cross-appeal of all claims

except the NEPA claim.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment

de novo. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. United

States, 672 F.3d 676, 699 (9th Cir. 2012). We also review de

novo a “district court’s interpretation and application of

federal statutes” and its conclusions on a party’s standing to

sue. Id.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) governs the

review of a challenge to an agency’s action brought under a

federal statute that “contains no provision for judicial

review.” Id. (citing United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77

(2002) (“[I]n the absence of a statutorily defined standard of

review for [an agency’s] action under [a federal statute], the

APAsupplies the applicable standard.”)). Neither the CVPIA

nor the Reclamation Act (43 U.S.C. § 383) includes such a

provision. Id.; Wild Fish Conservancy v. Jewell, 730 F.3d

791, 796 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Reclamation Act does not

create a private right of action.”). Thus, the APA governs our

review of the Water Contractors’ challenges brought under

these statutes. We review de novo a district court’s

application of the APA standards. Pyramid Lake Paiute

Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 898 F.2d 1410,

1414 (9th Cir. 1990).

We first address Federal Defendants’ argument that BOR

had the authority to implement the 2013 flow augmentation

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 20 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 21

release under the 1955 Act. The flow augmentation release

may be set aside under the APA if it is “in excess of statutory

jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory

right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). We then address whether BOR

violated any other statute raised by the Water Contractors. 

Under the APA, the panel also may set aside BOR’s actions

if they were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” § 706(2)(A). Under

this standard, we must consider “if the agency has articulated

a rational connection between the facts found and the

conclusions made.” Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns

v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir.

2005) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual

Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).

ANALYSIS

I. The 1955 Act

We begin our analysis by addressing whether the 1955

Act authorized BOR to release additional water from the

Lewiston Dam to protect fish populations in the lower

Klamath River. It is well settled “that the starting point for

interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself.” 

Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.,

447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980).

Section 2 of the 1955 Act states, in full:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the

operation of the Trinity River division shall be

integrated and coordinated, from both a

financial and an operational standpoint, with

the operation of other features of the Central

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 21 of 38
22 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

Valley project, as presently authorized and as

may in the future be authorized by Act of

Congress, in such manner as will effectuate

the fullest, most beneficial, and most

economic utilization of the water resources

hereby made available: Provided, That the

Secretary is authorized and directed to

adopt appropriate measures to insure the

preservation and propagation of fish and

wildlife, including, but not limited to, the

maintenance of the flow of the Trinity

River below the diversion point at not less

than one hundred and fifty cubic feet per

second for the months July through November

and the flow of Clear Creek below the

diversion point at not less than fifteen cubic

feet per second unless the Secretary and the

California Fish and Game Commission

determine and agree that lesser flows would

be adequate for maintenance of fish life and

propagation thereof; the Secretary shall also

allocate to the preservation and propagation of

fish and wildlife, as provided in the Act of

August 14, 1946 (60 Stat. 1080), an

appropriate share of the costs of constructing

the Trinity River development and of

operating and maintaining the same, such

costs to be non-reimbursable: Provided

further, That not less than 50,000 acre-feet

shall be released annually from the Trinity

Reservoir and made available to Humboldt

County and downstream water users.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 22 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 23

69 Stat. at 719–20 (bold emphasis added). We perceive no

ambiguity in the language regarding the preservation and

propagation mandate contained in section 2. This expansive

clause, directing the Secretary to adopt any “appropriate

measures,” contains no limiting language, geographic or

otherwise. The absence of limiting language indicates

Congress intended to delegate broad authority to the

Secretary, allowing the Secretary substantial discretion to

determine what constitutes “appropriate measures” in the face

of unforeseen or changing circumstances. See H.J. Inc. v.

Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 245 (1989) (“Congress’

decision not explicitly to limit RICO’s broad terms strongly

implies that Congress had in mind no such narrow and fixed

idea of what constitutes a [RICO] pattern as that suggested by

amici here.”); John v. United States, 247 F.3d 1032, 1043–44

(9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (Tallman, J. concurring in

judgment)(per curiam); cf. Diamond v.Chakrabarty, 447 U.S.

303, 316 (1980) (“Congress employed broad general

language in drafting § 101 precisely because such inventions

are often unforeseeable.”).

Congress wanted to, and thought it could, maintain the

rivers and their fish populations below the TRD while

diverting substantial inflow to the Sacramento River. H.R.

Rep. No. 84-602, at 4–5 (1955) (“[T]here is available for

importation from the Trinity River water that is surplus to the

present and future water requirements of the Trinity and

Klamath River Basins.”); S. Rep. No. 84-1154, at 5 (1955). 

Congress knew the Trinity River was the largest tributary of

the Klamath and was aware that any effect on the Trinity,

including water flows and water temperature, could ripple

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 23 of 38
24 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

down to the Klamath.5 However, Congress was not sure what

these effects would be. So, to account for unintended

consequences, Congress used general language, with no

geographic limitation, to empower the Secretary to take any

measures it found necessary to preserve all fish and wildlife

at any point downstream of the Trinity and Lewiston Dams. 

H.R. Rep. No. 84-602, at 4. (“[T]he [TRD] has been planned

with a view to maintaining and improving fishery

conditions.”). In fact, the House and Senate endorsed the

1955 Act before final studies to determine the “future water

requirements in the Klamath River Basin” were completed,

because it believed the “relatively small” diversion would not

harm the fishery resources, and the Secretary retained the

power to take measures to preserve and propagate fish and

wildlife if need be. Id. at 4–5; S. Rep. No. 84-1154, at 5.

Further, to avoid the ambiguities of establishing

causation, Congress omitted any requirement that the threat

to fish or wildlife be caused directly by the TRD. Thus, the

general language of the preservation and propagation

mandate gives the Secretary wide discretion in defining

“appropriate measures” and expands the statute beyond the

5

See To Authorize the Secretary of the Interior to Construct, Operate,

and Maintain the Trinity River Development, Central Valley Project,

California, Under Federal Reclamation Laws: Hearing on H.R. 123

Before the Subcomm. on Irrigation and Reclamation of the H. Comm. on

Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong. 86 (1954) (statement of Harold

Del Ponte, Supervisor, Del Norte County); To Authorize the Secretary of

the Interior to Construct, Operate, and Maintain the Trinity River

Division, Central Valley Project, California, Under Federal Reclamation

Laws: Hearing on H.R. 4663 Before the Subcomm. on Irrigation and

Reclamation of the H. Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, 84th Cong.

10 (1955) (statement of Clyde Spencer, Regional Director, Bureau of

Reclamation); H.R. Rep. No. 84-602, at 4–5.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 24 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 25

“principal evil Congress was concerned with when it” passed

the 1955 Act. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.,

523 U.S. 75, 79–80 (1998) (holding that Title VII, which

prohibits discrimination “because of sex,” covers same-sex

harassment, even though that was not “the principal evil

Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII”). 

Thus, even if Congress, when it enacted the 1955 Act, did not

contemplate a mass fish die-off in the lower Klamath or the

flow augmentation release BOR implemented to prevent it,

we still must interpret the general language of the

preservation and propagation mandate as authorizing the

release. BOR unquestionably implemented the flow

augmentation release to protect the fish population

downstream of the Lewiston Dam. This measure, and the evil

it sought to prevent, fall well within the statute’s mandate. 

See id. (“[I]t is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather

than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are

governed.”).

The “including, but not limited to,” language also

indicates Congress’s intent to provide a broad—not

ambiguous—directive. Courts have long recognized that “the

term ‘including’ is not one of all-embracing definition, but

connotes simply an illustrative application of the general

principle.” Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber

Co., 314 U.S. 95, 100 (1941) (citations omitted). Congress

identified the maintenance of a minimum flow from the

Lewiston Dam as one exemplary “appropriate measure” to

preserve fish and wildlife downstream from the Dam. 

Congress expected the Secretary to adopt other measures,

including water releases above the minimum flow rate, to

preserve fish and wildlife when necessary, using the

minimum flow rate as a guiding directive.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 25 of 38
26 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

Our interpretation is further buttressed by the fact that the

broad preservation and propagation clause is juxtaposed with

other, very precise directives. For example, section 2

specifically states, “[t]hat not less than 50,000 acre-feet shall

be released annually from the Trinity Reservoir and made

available to Humboldt County and downstream water users.” 

Act of Aug. 12, 1955, § 2, 69 Stat. at 720. Congress had the

ability to clearly define what does and does not constitute

“appropriate measures,” but it did not. For over six decades

thereafter, Congress has also declined to cabin or clarify this

term. We presume that Congress’s decision to “paint[] with

a broader brush” in the preservation and propagation mandate

was deliberate. United States v. Alexander, 725 F.3d 1117,

1121 (9th Cir. 2013) (comparing statutes in which Congress

has broadly and specifically defined terms).

The Water Contractors argue that flow augmentation

releases are not an “appropriate measure,” because they did

not serve the principal purpose of the 1955 Act—that is, to

provide water for the Central Valley. This position ignores

the emphasized “Provided,” with which the preservation and

propagation mandate begins. Such a proviso is intended “to

except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify and

restrain its generality and prevent misinterpretation.” United

States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 534 (1925); see also

Pennington v. United States, 48 Ct. Cl. 408, 412 (Ct. Cl.

1913) (explaining that provisos “tak[e] special cases out of

the general enactments and provid[e] specially for them”). 

Although section 2 generally requires that the TRD be

operated such that the water is put to the “fullest, most

beneficial, and most economic” use, the proviso specifically

excepts measures to ensure the preservation and propagation

of fish and wildlife. Thus, the measures to protect and

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 26 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 27

preserve wildlife need not harmonize with the 1955 Act’s

principal purpose.

The Water Contractors next argue that CVPIA section

3406(b)(23), and the 2000 ROD implementing its directives,

finally and permanently resolved how much water should be

released from the Lewiston Dam down the Trinity

River.Thus, the Water Contractors argue that the CVPIA

repealed or amended the 1955 Act such that “appropriate

measures” to protect fish and wildlife can no longer include

additional releases of water from the Lewiston Dam.

It is true that, in interpreting the 1955 Act, we must

consider the related legislation that Congress subsequently

enacted. See FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,

529 U.S. 120, 143 (2000). But, we conclude that the later

legislation and administrative actions identified by the Water

Contractors did not limit or repeal the 1955 Act. First, we do

not hold that a statute has been repealed by a subsequent act

unless Congress’s intention is “clear and manifest.” Moyle v.

Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 147 F.3d 1116,

1120 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Kee

Leasing Co. v. McGahan (In re the Glacier Bay), 944 F.2d

577, 581 (9th Cir. 1991)). There is no indication in the 1984

Act or CVPIA section 3406(b)(23) of a “clear and manifest”

intention to repeal or amend the 1955 Act.

Second, the general authority granted by the 1955 Act

was not repealed or replaced by the 1984 Act or CVPIA

section 3406(b)(23), because these later legislative acts

implemented specific programs to address particular

problems that had been brought to Congress’s attention. The

implementation of a specific program does not nullify an

agency’s pre-existing discretionary authority. Thus, the

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 27 of 38
28 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

implementation of a fish management or restoration program

did not abrogate the need to continually protect fish and

wildlife in the face of unforeseen harm.

Finally, the Water Contractors argue that the 2013 flow

augmentation release would have been permissible if BOR

had “purchased additional water to protect Central Valley

uses,” as BOR did in 2003 and 2004. But this argument is at

direct odds with the Water Contractors’ position that the 2000

ROD placed an absolute cap on the water that BOR can

release down the Trinity River from the Lewiston Dam. In

addition, BOR need not protect the economic interests of

Central Valley water contractors when it implements

measures to preserve the fish and wildlife downstream of the

Lewiston Dam.

The broad language of the 1955 Act authorized BOR to

implement the 2013 flow augmentation release—an

appropriate measure—to protect fish downstream from the

Lewiston Dam, which includes the lower Klamath River. 

Further, subsequent legislation did not clearly alter or limit

the expansive scope of the authority granted by the 1955 Act. 

Thus, BOR acted within its “statutory . . . authority,” 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(C), and we must reverse the district court on this

issue.

II. CVPIA § 3406(b)(23)

We next consider whether the 2013 flow augmentation

release violated CVPIA section 3406(b)(23).

Section 3406(b)(23) directed DOI to propose and adopt a

permanent water release schedule for the Lewiston Dam. 

DOI went through the necessary procedural steps section

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 28 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 29

3406(b)(23) called for and, in the 2000 ROD, DOI

established a permanent water release schedule that

accounted for changes in the area’s annual hydrology. The

parties agree this schedule sets both a minimum and a

maximum amount of water that BOR may release under the

authority granted by section 3406(b)(23) and the 2000 ROD. 

The Water Contractors argue that this schedule sets an

absolute maximum and that the 2012 and 2013 flow

augmentation release impermissibly exceeded this cap.

Again, we start our analysis with the text of the CVPIA.

Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc.,

484 U.S. 49, 56 (1987). The plain language of the statute

indicates that Congress intended the permanent water release

schedule to serve only the Trinity River. Section 3406(b)(23)

makes multiple references to the Trinity River and does not

contain any reference to the Klamath River. For example,

section 3406(b)(23) established an interim “release of water

to the Trinity River of not less than three hundred and forty

thousand acre-feet per year,” and called for a permanent

schedule of “Trinity River instream fishery releases.” Id.

In addition, the statute provides that the directives of

section 3406(b)(23) were meant to “meet Federal trust

responsibilities to protect the fishery resources of the Hoopa

Valley Tribe, and to meet the fishery restoration goals of the

Act of October 24, 1984.” Congress’s citation to the 1984

Act is significant. The 1984 Act, as originally adopted, called

for rehabilitation of fish habitat in the “Trinity River between

Lewiston Dam and Weitchpec” and “in tributaries of such

river below Lewiston Dam and in the south fork of such

river.” § 2(a)(1)(A)–(B), 98 Stat. at 2722. Congress

amended the 1984 Act in the 1996 Reauthorization Act,

110 Stat. 1338, which altered the scope of the 1984 Act’s

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 29 of 38
30 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

rehabilitation mandate to include “the Klamath River

downstream of the confluence with the Trinity River,” § 3(b),

110 Stat. at 1339. Thus, the 1984 Act originally did not

intend to cover “the Klamath River downstream of the

confluence with the Trinity River.” As the district court

found, we conclude the reference to the specific goal of the

1984 Act was a reference to a “limited and particular

provision[] of another statute,” which does not incorporate

subsequent amendments to that statute. Pearce v. Dir., Office

of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 603 F.2d

763, 767 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting Dir., Office of Workers’

Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Peabody Coal Co.,

554 F.2d 310, 322 (7th Cir. 1977)) (explaining the difference

between a “specific reference” and a “general reference”). 

Accordingly, the reference to the 1984 Act in the CVPIA

(which was enacted in 1992) does not include the 1996

amendment. Section 3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA is thus

limited to the Trinity River basin and does not cover the

lower Klamath.

We also find significant section 3406(b)(23)’s reference

to the Hoopa Valley Tribe—and its exclusion of all other

tribes. The Hoopa Valley Reservation is within the Trinity

River basin. The Yurok Tribe Reservation lies outside of the

Trinity River basin, along the lower Klamath. If Congress

intended the directives contained in section 3406(b)(23) to

also serve the lower Klamath, it would have also listed the

“Federal trust responsibilities” it owes the Yurok Tribe. See

Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 832 (9th Cir.

2000) (“The incorporation of one statutory provision to the

exclusion of another must be presumed intentional under the

statutory canon of expressio unius.”).

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 30 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 31

Thus, it is clear Congress intended section 3406(b)(23) to

be geographically limited to the Trinity River basin. Any

water that BOR releases from the Lewiston Dam to aid areas

outside of the Trinity River basin is not subject to the

permanent water release schedule called for in section

3406(b)(23) and implemented in the 2000 ROD. Because

BOR intended to aid the lower Klamath River (and not the

Trinity River) in implementing the 2013 flow augmentation

release, the release did not violate section 3406(b)(23). 

Therefore, we must affirm the district court on this issue.

III. The Endangered Species Act Claim

Generally, “[t]o establish Article III standing, a plaintiff

must demonstrate that: (1) he suffered an injury in fact that is

concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the

injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and

(3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court

decision.” Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776,

782 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Friends of the Earth,

Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 168

(2000)). However, this standard is softened when a plaintiff

asserts a “violation of ‘a procedural right.’” Id. at 782–83

(quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572 n.7

(1992)). “A showing of procedural injury lessens a plaintiff’s

burden on the last two prongs of the Article III standing

inquiry, causation and redressibility.” Salmon Spawning &

Recovery All. v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220, 1226 (9th Cir.

2008). To establish a procedural “injury in fact, [a plaintiff]

must allege . . . that (1) the [agency] violated certain

procedural rules; (2) these rules protect [a plaintiff’s]

concrete interests; and (3) it is reasonably probable that the

challenged action will threaten their concrete interests.” 

Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n,

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 31 of 38
32 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

457 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting City of Sausalito

v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2004)).

The Water Contractors assert that BOR implemented the

2013 flow augmentation release without conducting a formal

section 7 consultation for ESA-listed fish species.

6 An

“alleged violation[] of Section 7(a)(2)’s consultation

requirement,” like theWater Contractors assert, “constitute[s]

a procedural injury for standing purposes.” Nat. Res. Def.

Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d at 783 (citing Citizens for Better

Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 971 (9th Cir.

2003)). We focus our analysis on whether the Water

Contractors have shown that “it is reasonably probable that

the challenged action will threaten their concrete interests.” 

Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv., 457 F.3d at 949.

The Water Contractors generally assert that BOR’s failure

to conduct a section 7 consultation threatens their concrete

economic interest “in ensuring the continued delivery of

water to their members.” More specifically, the Water

Contractors allege that the 2013 flow augmentation release

would reduce the total volume of water available to maintain

cold water temperatures in the Sacramento River. In support

of this assertion, the Water Contractors cite one of their

experts that maintains that the reduction of cold water storage

“may adversely impact winter-run and/or spring run salmon

egg incubation in 2013, and in 2014 if the winter of 2014

does not result in sufficient flows to refill the reservoirs,”

6

“Section 7 imposes on all agencies a duty to consult with either the

Fish and Wildlife Service or the [National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration] Fisheries Service before engaging in any discretionary

action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat.” Karuk Tribe of

Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1020 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 32 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 33

because incubating salmonid eggs can be harmed if the water

temperatures exceed fifty-six degrees.7 The Water

Contractors next assert that, if the salmonid eggs are harmed

and the salmonid populations in the Sacramento River shrink,

third-party agencies will place more stringent regulations on

CVP operations and restrict the amount of water delivered to

its members. Finally, the Water Contractors assert such

regulations and water restrictions will economically harm

them because San Luis’s member districts (including

Westlands Water District) rely on CVP water to irrigate

farms, employ farm workers, and generally maintain their

communities.

The Water Contractors’ posited series of events that must

occur before the economic harm is realized is both too

uncertain and too remote to constitute a reasonably probable

threat of injury. The Water Contractors have set forth “an

attenuated chain of conjecture,” Hall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969,

977 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac.

Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141, 1152 (9th Cir. 2000)), that relies

on a series of contingencies in weather and water

temperature. Further, the allegation that third-party agencies

will eventually impose more regulations on CVP water is

speculative at best. The only evidence the Water Contractors

offered in support of this assertion is the declaration of Daniel

G. Nelson, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority’s

Executive Director, who discussed CVP regulations that were

7 The Water Contractors assert that their “ability to deliver water to

their members is dependent on the status and recovery of the listed

species,” which include coho salmon, winter- and spring-run Chinook

salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green sturgeon, and Delta Smelt. The

Water Contractors’ expert refers primarily to “salmonids,” which includes

“Chinook salmon, Coho salmon and steelhead.”

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 33 of 38
34 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

put in place in the 1990s. This declaration regarding past

regulations is insufficient to show a “credible threat” that

third-party agencies will increase regulations on CVP water

at some point in the future. Id. at 976. The Water

Contractors can also only speculate as to what regulations

third-party agencies might put in place.

Not only is the alleged threat to the Water Contractors’

economic interests not “reasonabl[y] probabl[e],” it is also

not “fairly traceable” to BOR’s actions, because it “rel[ies] on

conjecture about the behavior of other parties.” Id. at 975,

977 (quoting Ecological Rights Found., 230 F.3d at 1152). 

The imposition of regulations by an outside agency is an

“independent action of some third party not before the court,”

Ass’n of Pub. Agency Customers v. Bonneville Power Admin.,

733 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S.

at 560), that “break[s] the causal link” between the flow

augmentation release and the Water Contractors’ alleged

economic harm, id. at 953.

The district court found that the Water Contractors lacked

standing to bring their ESA claim both because they failed to

establish a “reasonable probability of the challenged action’s

threat to [their] concrete interest,” 52 F. Supp. 3d at 1042

(quoting Hall, 266 F.3d at 977), and because section 7 was

not designed to protect their asserted economic interest. We

decline to reach the latter issue. Instead, the Water

Contractors have failed to establish standing, because they

have not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the

alleged failure to conduct a section 7 consultation will

threaten their economic interests.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 34 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 35

IV. The Reclamation Act (43 U.S.C. § 383) and CVPIA

§ 3411(a)

Finally, we address whether BOR violated the

Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C. § 383, or section 3411(a) of the

CVPIA by implementing the 2013 flow augmentation release

without first obtaining a modification in its water rights

permits.

A. The Reclamation Act

Under the Reclamation Act of 1902, BOR must comply

with state water law in “control[ling], appropriat[ing],

us[ing], or distribut[ing]” water, 43 U.S.C. § 383; see also

Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1092, 1101

(9th Cir. 2003), unless the state law is “directly inconsistent

with . . . a preemptive federal statute,” Nat. Res. Def. Council

v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998). California

law provides that “[t]he issuance of a permit gives the right

to take and use water only to the extent and for the purpose

allowed in the permit.” Cal. Water Code § 1381. Further, a

water rights permit holder may only “change the point of

diversion, place of use, or purpose of use from that specified

in the . . . permit . . . upon permission of the [State Water

Resources Control Board].” Id. § 1701.

BOR has several water rights permits it obtained from the

state of California in the 1950s to divert water from the

Trinity River at Lewiston Dam to the CVP. The Water

Contractors argue that BOR did not comply with California

law when it implemented the 2013 flow augmentation

release, because these water rights permits did not list the

lower Klamath River as “an approved place of use,” and BOR

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 35 of 38
36 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

did not obtain permission from the State Water Resources

Control Board to change the place of use of the permits.

California Fish & Game Code section 5937 creates an

exception to the permit change requirement. This code

section provides:

The owner of any dam shall allow sufficient

water at all times to pass through a fishway, or

in the absence of a fishway, allow sufficient

water to pass over, around or through the dam,

to keep in good condition any fish that may be

planted or exist below the dam.

Cal. Fish & Game Code § 5937. This code section not only

allows, but requires BOR to allow sufficient water to pass the

Lewiston Dam to maintain the fish below the Dam. The use

of the unconditional “shall” indicates that such required

releases are not dependent on having a proper water permit. 

Although the lower KlamathRiver is many miles downstream

of the Lewiston Dam, it is still “below the dam.” Therefore,

section 5937 permitted BOR to release water from the

Lewiston Dam to “keep in good condition” the fish in the

lower Klamath River without changing its water rights

permits. Significantly, the California Department of Fish and

Wildlife has submitted an amicus brief asserting that section

5937 authorized the 2013 flow augmentation release. 

Accordingly, BOR neither violated California water law nor

the Reclamation Act in implementing the 2013 flow

augmentation release.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 36 of 38
SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD 37

B. CVPIA § 3411(a).

Section 3411(a) of the CVPIA provides:

[T]he Secretary shall, prior to the reallocation

of water from any purpose of use or place of

use specified within applicable Central Valley

Project water rights permits and licenses to a

purpose of use or place of use not specified

within said permits or licenses, obtain a

modification in those permits and licenses, in

a manner consistent with the provisions of

applicable State law, to allow such change in

purpose of use or place of use.

The Water Contractors assert that BOR violated this

provision because it failed to obtain permission fromthe State

Water Resources Control Board to modify its water permits

before implementing the 2013 flow augmentation release. 

The Water Contractors also assert that this section of the

CVPIA places a duty on BOR, independent of state law, to

obtain a change in the water rights permits.

We have previously concluded that “section 3411(a)

restates the requirements of California water law.” Westlands

Water Dist. v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, 43 F.3d 457, 461

(9th Cir. 1994). Indeed, section 3411(a) clearly provides that

any modification must be “consistent with the provisions of

applicable State law.” Accordingly, we reaffirm our holding

that section 3411(a) does not impose on BOR a duty to obtain

a permit modification that is independent of the duty created

by state law. As explained above, California Fish & Game

Code section 5937 creates an exception to the general rule

that water permit holders must obtain permission to modify

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 37 of 38
38 SAN LUIS V. HAUGRUD

their permits before altering the place or purpose of the water

use listed on their permits. Because the 2013 flow

augmentation release fell under the section 5937 exception,

BOR did not violate California law, and thus did not violate

CVPIA section 3411(a).

CONCLUSION

The broad language of the 1955 Act gave BOR the

authority to implement the 2013 flow augmentation release to

protect fish in the lower Klamath River. Because the 2013

flow augmentation release sought to protect fish in the lower

Klamath River, it did not violate CVPIA section 3406(b)(23),

which called for a permanent water release schedule that

would serve only the Trinity River basin. The 2013 flow

augmentation release also did not violate California water law

and, in turn, did not violate the Reclamation Act or CVPIA

section 3411(a), both of which require BOR to comply with

state water permitting requirements. Finally, we do not reach

the merits of the ESA claim, as the Water Contractors do not

have standing to pursue this claim.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and

REVERSED IN PART.

 Case: 14-17493, 02/21/2017, ID: 10325854, DktEntry: 96-1, Page 38 of 38