N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SAN LUIS OB ISPO C OASTKEEPER , a proje c t of EPIC , a

501(c )(3) nonprofit c orporation; LOS PADR

E S FOR EST W ATC H, a

501(c )(3) nonprofit c orporation, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. U.S. DEPAR T M E NT OF THE INTER IOR ; UNITED STATES B UR EAU OF R E C LAM ATION; B RENDA B URM AN, C om

m issione r, U.S. B ure a

u of R e c lam a tion,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-16655 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-00177-EM C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd M . C he n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2020 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
OCT 26 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : C LIFTON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s. San Luis Obispo C oa stke e pe r and Los Pa dre s Fore st W a tc h (“ C o a s tke e pe r” )
a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of C oa stke e p e r’ s c la im ba se d on C a lifornia la w, a rguing tha

t the distric t

c ourt e rre d in finding tha t the Unite d State s 1 ha d not
wa ive d its sove re ign im

m unity pursua nt to theM c C arra n Am e ndm e nt, 43 U.S.C . § 666. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The Santa

M aria W a te r C onse rva tion Distric t’ s (“ Distric t” ) prior litiga tion to
e sta blish groundwa

te r rights within the

San ta M aria Va lle y (“ S anta Maria Valle

y Groundw ate r Litigation ” ) did not qua lify a s a c om pre he nsive a djudic a tion of the Unite d State s’ wa te r rights suffic ie nt to wa ive sove re ign im m unity pursua nt to the M c C arra n Am e ndm e n t. To be suffic ie ntly “ c om pre h e nsive ” to wa ive sove re ign im m unity pursua nt to theM c C arra n

Am e ndm e nt, Unite d State s v . Idaho , 508 U.S. 1, 3 (1993), a

n a djudic a tion of wa

te r rights “ m

u st inc lude the unde t e rm i ne d c la im s of a ll pa rtie s with a

n inte re st in there le va

nt wa te r sourc e , ” Unite d State

s v . Ore gon , 44 F.3d 758, 769 (9th C ir. 1994). B e c a use ne ithe r the Unite d State s nor its right to im

pound a nd use the C uy a m a R ive r wa t e r for flood c o ntrol purpose s
wa s subje c t to the Santa Maria Valle y Groundw a te r Litigation , tha t litiga tion wa s

1 W e re fe r to na

m e d de fe nda

nts— the De pa rtm e nt of the Inte rior a

nd the B ure a u of R e c lam ation— c olle c tive ly a s the “ Unite d

State s.” 2not a

“ c om pre he nsive a djudic a t ion” of “ [t] he whole c om m unity of c la im s . . . involve d” in this c a se . Unite d State s v . Dist. C

ourt for Eagle

C ty
. , 401 U.S. 520, 525 (1971); se e also Unite d State s v . C appae rt , 508 F.2d 313, 321 (9th C ir. 1974) (noting tha

t, be c a use “ [t] he Unite d

State s wa s not re quire d to a ppe ar and prove its
wa te r rights to pre ve nt forfe iture of its c la im s[,] the wate r rights of theUnite d Sta t e s we re not in issue ” ). Thus, the Unite d State s ha s not wa ive d its sove re ign im m unity in this c a se . C oa stke e pe r’ s a

rgum e nts to thec ontra

ry are not pe rsua sive . First, C oa stke e pe r’ s atte m

pts to e quate the rights of theDistric t— a pa rty to the Santa Maria Valle

y Groundw ate r Litigation

— to those he ld by

the Unite d State s a

re not supporte d by the re c ord. Ne ithe r the “ Lic e nse for [the ] Dive rsion a nd Use of W a te r” (“ Lic e nse ” ) from

C a lifornia

nor the Unite d State s’ c ontra c t “ Providing for the C onstruc tion of theSanta M aria Proje c t ” (“ C ontra c t” ) gra nte d the Distric t the Unite d State s’ wa te r right a

t issue he re or othe rwise a u thoriz e d the Distric t

to a c t a s the U nite d State s’ c o ntra c tua l de le gate with re ga rd to tha t wat e r right. Inde e d, the rights gra nte d to the Distric t in the Lic e nse and C ontra c t we re “ subje c t to” the Unite d State s’ right to use the im pounde d wate r for flood c ontrol purpose s . The re fore , though the Santa Maria Valle y Groundw ate r Litigation m ay have involve d “ [t] he whole c om m unity of c la im s” within the

Santa M aria Groundwa

te r
3B a sin, se e Eagle C ty
. , 401 U.S. a

t 525, it did not involve

the Unite d State s’ right to
use the im

pounde d rive r wa te r for flood c ontrol purpose s— the right C o a stke e pe r
se e k s to re a c h in this c a se . Se c ond, C oa stke e pe r’ s “ c ha i n of wate r rights” argum e nt ha s no a ppa re nt le ga l ba sis. Tha

t a ll wa te r in a spe c ific are a

— he re , the Santa

M aria Groundwa

te r B a sin— h a s be e n a

pportione d out to rights holde rs in tha t a re a , doe s not m e a

n a ll upstre a m use rs who ha

ve a prior or a ppropria tive right a

re som e how “ involve d” in
suc h an a pportionm e nt. The Unite d State s’ wate r right a

t issue he re
—

the right to im pound the wa te r a

nd use it for flood c ontrol purpose s— w a s not a t issue in the Santa Maria Valle

y Groundw ate r Litigation . Thus, theUnite d State s ha d no

“ inte re st in there le va

n t wate r sourc e ” and ha s not wa ive d its sove re ign im m unity
. Ore gon , 44 F.3d a

t 769. 2. B e c a

use we have de te rm ine d tha t the re ha s be e n

no c om pre he nsive
a djudic a tion inc luding theUnite d State s’ right to im pound the C uy a m a

R ive r wa t e r for flood c o ntrol purpose s, we ne e d not re a c h the que stion of whe t he r C oa stke e pe r’ s suit is a

n “ a dm inistra

tion” of suc h wate r rights. Se e Orff v . Unite d State s , 358 F.3d 1137, 1143 n.3 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ To c om e within the [a dm inistra

tion c la use of the M c C arra n Am e ndm e nt] , a suit m ust se e k to e nforc e
or a dm iniste r rights of thesort c ove re d by § 666(a )(1), a lre a d

y a djudic a t e d.” ).
4AFFIRM E D. 2

2 W e grant C o a stke e pe r’ s M otion for Judic i a l Notic e of the pa ra lle l sta te c o urt proc e e dings. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 201; ac c ord Re ady Link He a l thc are

, Inc

. v . State C omp. Ins. Fund

, 754 F.3d 754, 756 n.1 (9th C ir. 2014).

5