F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E N IN TH C IR C U IT

S AN L U I S U

NI T F OOD P ROD U CERS ; E L D OR ADO F AR MS ; LAGUNA E X CELS I O R F AR MS , L L C; J L K; RYAN F AMI L Y F A RM S L P; M AR L U F AR MS ; S I MC OT F AR MS ; B R AD G L EA S ON ; R O SS A L L EN ; C A LIF O R N IA P I S TAC HI O L L C; D OUBL E B. F AR MS ; B U STER A L L EN , I

NC .; T U RK S TATI ON L L C; C.S. S TEF ANOP OUL OS ; E L EN A S TEF ANOP OUL OS ; D. D. S TEF ANOP OUL OS ; P AGONA S TEF ANOP OUL OS ; U N I V ER SA L L AND C O .; C OR T B LACKBURN ; L A U RA B LACKBURN ; MC F A RM S L L C; M AR TY A CQU I STA PA CE ; C U R T IS S T U BB LEFI ELD , Plain tif

fs- Ap pe lla nts ,

v.
U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ; D EPARTMENT OF THE I NTER I OR ; B U RE A U O F R EC L AMATI ON ,

Defendants-A

ppellees

. No. 11-16122

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01871- O W W

- D LB

OPI NI ONS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 2

T h e H on or abl e Fr ede r i c B l ock , Se n i or U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or * t he E ast ern D i st ri ct of N ew Y o rk, s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no par t of t he op i ni on o f

the c our t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Ca lif or nia Oliver W. Wange r, Senior District Judge, Pre siding

Argued and Submitted De c e mbe r 5 , 2 01 2— San F ra nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia

Filed Ma rch 1, 2013

Be fore : Stephen S. Trott and J ohnnie B . Rawlinson, Circuit J udg es, and F rede ric B lock, District J udg e. *

Op ini on by Judg e Tr ott

SUMMAR

Y **

WaterRights The panel aff

irmed the district cour

t’s judgme nt in favor of the United States B urea u o f R eclamation in an action broug ht by

fa rm ers unde r the Administrative Proce dure A ct
se e kin g to c omp e l the B ur e a u to pr ov ide ir

ri g a tion d istri c ts with more water.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 3
Th e pa ne l he ld that the B ur e a

u wa s not le g a lly re qu ir e d to take a discrete action to deliver the far mers’ pr efe rre d amount of water fr om the San Luis Unit of the Central Va lley Project for irrig ation befor e it pr ovides water for other purposes. The panel he ld that there w as no final age ncy action, nor w as there any action that the Bure au had unla wfully withheld. The panel concluded that the farmers had not established subjec t
ma tte r j ur isd ic tio n und e r t he Ad min istrativ e Pr oc e dure Ac t.

CO UN SEL

Th e od or e A. Che ste r, J r., Smil and & Che ste r, L os An g e le s, Ca lif or nia , f or Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts

. Pete r K r zy w ic k i a n d M ic h a e l T

. G r ay , U n it e d St a tes De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e , Wa sh ing ton , D.C ., fo r D e fe nd ants

Ap pe lle e s.

OP IN ION TROTT, Circuit J udg e: Today we c onsider whe ther farmer s and farming entities (collec tively , “F arme rs”) that irrig ate their land using water from the San L

uis Unit of the Central Va lley Project – the
na t i o n ’ s l ar g e s tr e c l a m a t i o np r o j e c t– m ay m a i n t a i na

c la im under the Administrative Procedur e Act (“APA” ) to compel the Un ite d St a te s B ur e a

u o f R e c lamatio n (“the B ur e a u” ) t o provide the Fa

rmers’ irrig ation districts with more water than it is currently

provi d i n g. The F arme rs ar g ue that seve ral fe de ra l st a tut e s re qu ir e the B ur e a u to pr ov ide ir

ri g a tor s w ithS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 4

W e ex p res s no opi n i on on t h e di s t r i ct c ou r t ’ s ot h er r ea s on s f or 1 d i sm i ssi ng t he F arm ers’ clai m s. sufficie nt irrig ation water

to satisfy the Fa

rmers’ needs be fore deliveringwater

to any other party for a

ny other purpose . The district court g rante d sum m ar y judgme nt in favor of

the Bur eau on se vera l gr ounds, including that the Burea u does not have a statutory duty to rele ase a cer

tain amount of water for irrig ation and that, conseque ntly , the Fa rmers’ claims did not sat i s fy the final a g ency

action re quirement of the APA. Althou g h the district court discussed this issue in terms of
s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y, w e r e s o l v e t h e c a s e s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t l y.
Pur su ant t o th e S up rem e Court ’s un anim ou s d e c isi on in Norton v. Southern Utah W il d er ness Alliance (“ S U WA ”), 54 2 U .S. 55 (2 00 4) , w e ho ld that th e B ur e a u is no t le g a lly
re qu ir e d to take a

dis c re te actio n to de liv e r t he F arm e rs ’ pref err ed amount of San L

uis Unit water f

or irrig ation befor e it provides water for other purposes. The Bure au retains the dis c re tio n to a llo c a te San L uis wate r a

mon g va ri ou s p art ie s to satisfy its various obligations. Th ere is no final ag ency a c tio n, no r i s th e re any a c tio n that the B ur e a u h a s unla

wf ull y w it h h eld. See 5 U .S. C. § § 7 04 & 70 6( 1) . T he F arm e rs ’ claims amount to a broad prog rammatic attack on the way the B u r e a ug e n e r a ll y

o p e r a te s th e Ce n tr a l V a ll e y Pr o je ct, s ee S U WA , 54 2 U. S

. at 64, and therefor e the F arme rs have not
es t abli shed subject matter jurisdiction under the APA, 1 Al v arad o v . Ta bleMo un tai n R an c he ria , 509 F.3d 10 0 8, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2007).S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 5

I Reclamation projects are indispensable fe ature s of ag riculture in the Western Unit ed S tates. “The Reclamation Act of 1902 se t in m o tion a massive prog ram to provide fe d er al fi n an ci n g, co n s t ru ct i o n , an d o p er at i o n of wa

ter stora ge and d i s t ribution projects to rec laim arid lands in many We s te r n St a te s

. ” Or

ff v. United States , 545 U.S. 596, 598 (2 00 5) ; se e ge ne ra lly

43 U.S.C. §§ 371-600e. When the Dep artment of the I nterior de cides to build and oper ate a
rec lamation projec t, the age ncy must “appr opriate, pur chase , or c on de mn n e c e ssa

ry wate r r ig hts in s trict con fo rm ity wi th state law.” Calif

ornia v. United States , 4 3 8 U.S . 645, 665 (1 97 8) . A s th e F arm e rs a c kn ow le dg e , the B ur e a u obta ine d a ll of the water rig hts involved in the San Luis U nit “in the 1960s under both fe dera l and state law .” Op. B r. at 36.

Th e Ce ntr a l V a lle y

Pr oje c t (“ CV P” ) is “ a sy ste m of dams, rese rvoirs, leve es, ca

nals, pumping stati o n s, hy dropowe r plants, and other inf

rastruc ture [that] di s t ri butes wate r throug hout California’s vast Central Va lley .” Or ff , 5 45 U. S. at 598. The CVP was orig inally “take n over a

nd executed” by the United States under the Reclamation Act an d was r e a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e R i v e r s an d

H ar b o r s A c to f

1 9 3 7 , P u b

. L. No. 75-392, 50 Stat. 844, 850 (“the CVP Act”). W estlands W ater Dist. v. United States , 3 37 F .3 d 1 09 2, 10 95 n. 3 ( 9th Cir. 2003). The B urea

u is the ag ency

within the Depar

tment of the I nte ri or

c ha rg e d w itha dmi nis te ri ngthe CV P. Congr ess i nitially

prioritized the purposes of the CVP as fo llo ws : “ [T]he sa id d a m and re se rv oir s sh a ll be us e d, fi rs t, for r i v er regulation, improvement of navig ation, and flood
c on tr ol; second, for irrigation and domestic uses; a nd, third,S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 6 for powe r.” CVP Act § 2 ( 1937) (e mphasis add ed). Howeve r, Cong ress amended the CVP Ac t in 1 9 9 2 wi th the C en tral Va lley

Project I mprovement Ac t, Pub. L . No. 102- 575, 106 Stat. 4600 (“CVPI A”) , whi ch re-prioritized the purposes of the CVP. O’Neill v. United States , 50 F.3d 677, 68 6 ( 9th Cir. 19 95 ). Th e hie ra

rc hy of purp os e s n owre a ds , “[T] he said dam and r eser voirs shall be used, f

irst, for rive r re g ulatio n, imp ro ve me nt o f n a vig a tio n, and fl oo d c on trol ; second, for irrigation and do me sti c us e s an d fi

sh an d wi ldl ife mi t i g a tion, protection and restoration pur poses ; and, third, f o r p o w e r an d f i s h an d w i l d l i f e e n h an c e m e n t

. ” C V P IA § 3 4 0 6 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) ; C V P A c t§ 2

. T h e C V P IA
a lso re qu ir e s th a t th e B ureau o pe rate the CV P to “ me e t a ll obligations under State and Fe d eral law, including but not lim ite d to the Feder a l E nd ang e re d Sp e c ie s A c t, 1 6 U .S. C. 1531, et seq. ” CVPI A § 3406(b).

I n 1960, Congr ess authorized the Secre tary of the Interior to construct and ope rate the San Luis Un i t “a s an integ ral part” of the CVP. Act of June 3, 1960, P u b

. L . No. 86-488, § 1 (a ), 74 Stat. 1 56 , 15 6 (“ the San Luis Ac t” ). Th e San L uis Ac t ( 1) state s th a t th e “ pr inc ipa l pu rpo se” of the Un it i s to furnish water for

ir ri g ation and (2) identifies four “incident[al]” p u rp oses – amongthem, “fish and w ildlife benef its.” Id. The San L

uis Act also pr o v i d es that “[t] he principal e ng ineer ing f

eatur es of said Unit shall be a dam and
r e s e r v o i r a t o r n e ar t h e S an Lu i s s i t e , a f o r e b ay an d

a f t e r b ay, the San Luis Canal, the Pleasant Va lley Canal, and ne cessa

ry pu mpi ng pla nts , d ist ri bu ti on sy st ems , d rai ns , ch annel s, le ve e s, flood works a

nd related fa cilities.” Id.

Th e Re c lamatio n A c t a

uth or ize s th e B ur e a

u to e nte r i nto contra cts for the use of r ecla mation water

for se vera lS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 7 purposes, includingirrig ation. See 43 U.S.C. §§ 423e & 521. As is releva

nt here , the B u re au contr acts with irrig ation dis tr ic ts f or the de liv e ry

of wate r f ro m the San L

uis Un it. Eac h co n trac t contains a shorta g e provision excusing the Bur eau f rom the full amount of it s contra ctual water de livery obligations if water shor tag es ar e ca

used by , among other things, droug ht, mechanic al malfunc tions, or statutory obligations on the part of the B urea u to deliver water for other purposes – such a s obligations im pos ed by the Endang ere d Spe c ie s A c t and the CV PI A. On c e the B ur e a u c on tr a c ts w ith an irrig ation district, the dist ri ct i n turn contra cts with endus e rs lik e the F arm e rs

. Acc ording to the Bur eau’ s Deputy Reg ional Resource s Manag er, ever

y y ear the Bur eau projec ts the amount of CVP water that will be available “base d upon rese rvoir storag e, prec ipit at i o n, runoff

fore casts, and othe r indices.” Dec l. of Richard Stevenson, A

pril 26, 2010, ¶ 5. I t then allocate s that water among the B urea

u’s contra ctors, including irrig ation dis tr ic ts a nd wi ldl if e re fu g e s.
The F arme rs alleg e that for deca des the B urea u delivere d enoug h water

to the i rrig ation districts – which then sold the water to the Fa rmers – f or the F arme rs to irrig at e 1 0 0% of their lands to their sa t i s fa ction. But in the last seve ral y ear s the B urea u has provided less water for irr iga tion, allocating
subs t an t i a l a m o u n t s o f S an Lu i s w a t e r f o r o t h e r p u r

p o se s – particula rly for the pr otection and r estoration of f ish and wildlife. The B urea

u also allows a sig nificant volume of water to flow natura lly , rathe r than c apturingit to be used for irrig ation. Acc ording to the Fa rmers, the Bu rea

u has unlawfully

“tra nsmute[d] the Unit f

rom an irrig ation projec t into a fish and wildlife e nterprise .” Op. B r. at 8.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 8
The F arme rs filed suit under the APA in the United States District Court for the Ea stern District o f C al ifornia. The Fa rmers c ontended that the B urea u is require d by

fede ral law to deliver more wa t er for irr igation and less waterfor nonirrig ation purposes such as fish and wildlife. They claim they
are e nti tle d to the a mou

nt o f w a te r t

hat th e y have his tor ic a lly put to benef

icial use – presumably making this h i storical
me a sure me nt s ome tim e be fo re the B ur e a u b e g an c ur

ta ili ngits deliverie s of irrig ation water . At oral a rg ument, counsel for the F arm e rs e sti mate d th is a mou nt as a pp ro xima te ly 1,000,000 acr e-f

eet, a t l east in times when ther e is no wate r shortag e.
The B urea

u moved for judg ment on the pl eading s, and the Fa rmers moved fo r summary judgme nt. The district court g rante d the B urea

u’s motion, denied the F arme rs’ m o ti o n , a nd g rante d summary

judgme nt to the B urea

u. The district cour

t deter mined that with respec t to most of the sta t u tory provisions cited by

the Fa rmers, ( 1) the B urea

u did not have a manda tory

duty to act to provide a

cer tain amount of irrig ation water , (2) the F arme rs thus did not satisfy the final
a g e nc y a c tio n r e qu ir e me nt o f t

he APA , a

nd (3 ) t he F arm e rs ’ cl aims were there fore barr ed by the doctrine of sover ei gn immunit y . The c ourt held in the alternative that the Fa rmers lacke d prudential sta n d i n g. Wit h respe ct to four of the Fa rmers’ cl aim s, the district court held that the F arme rs l ac k edco n s t i tu t i o n al s t an d i n g.
Th e F arm e rs tim e ly

a pp e a l.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 9

II
We reviewde novo the district cour t’s interpre tation of fe de ra l s tat utes su c h a s th e Re c lamatio n A c t, t he CV P Ac t, and the San Luis Act. Firebaugh C anal Co. v. United States , 203 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir. 2000)

. When inter preti n g a statute, “our sta

rting point is t he plain langu age of the statute.” Consejo de Desarrollo Economic o de Me xicali v. Un ited States , 4 8 2 F

. 3 d

1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 8 ( 9 th

Ci r

. 2 0 0 7 )

. T hat pla in m e anin g c on tr ols “ e xce pt w he n it s a pp lic a tio n le a ds to
unrea sonable or impra cticable results.” De Osorio v. Mayork as , 695 F.3d 1003, 1013 ( 9th Cir. 201 2 ) (e n banc) (interna l quotation marks omitted).

Where no other

statute provides for

judicial revie w of ag ency action, as is the c ase he re, the APA allows cha lleng es t o f i n a l a g e n c y a c t i o n

. A g e n c y a c t i o n i n c l u d e s a “ f a i l u r e to act.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13). The F arme rs d o n o t challeng e a s p ec i fi c w at er

al l o ca t i o nb y

t h e B u re au

. R at h er , t h e y al l ege that the B urea

u has g ener ally

failed to del iver e noug h water to the irrig atio n d istricts for those districts to sell sufficient water to the Fa

rmers. I n such a “ failure to act” c ase, a court can “ compel ag ency

action u n lawfully

withheld or
unrea sonably

delay ed.” 5 U .S.C. § 706(1). The Supreme Court expl ained the r equirements of § 706(1) in S U WA

. I n th a t c a se , th e Court c on sid e re d a

n A PA claim that the Burea

u of L and Mana g ement (“ BL M”) violated
se ve ra l st a tut or

y pr ov isi on s b y

fa ili ng to take a c tio n w ith respe ct t o off- road ve hicle use on f eder al land. 542 U.S. at 60–61. Noting that a “f

ailure to a ct” within the mea ning of the APA is the failure of the ag ency to issue a n “ag ency rule, order , license, sanction or re lief,” id. at 62, the Court held thatS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 10 jud ic ia l r e vie w o f a fa ilure to ac t unde r § 706( 1) “ is p ro pe rl y understood to be l i m i t ed . . . to a dis c re te action,” id. at 63 (interna l quotation marks and alter ation omitted). “Ge nera l de fi c i e n c i e s i nc o mp l i an c e

. . . l a c k t h e s p e c i f

i c i t y r e qu i s i te for a g ency

action,” id. a t 66 , a

nd thu s “ br oa d p ro g ra

mmatic attack[s]” on an ag ency ’s administration of a pr og ram a re prohibited, id. at 64.

The Court also explained that even discr ete a g ency action
c ann ot b e c omp e lle d und e r § 70 6( 1) un le ss that a c tio n is “dema nded by law.” Id. at 65. Statutory g oals t hat ar e “mandatory as to the object to be a chieve d” but leave the
a g e nc y wi th “ di scre tio n in

de c idi ngho w t o a c hie ve ” tho se g oa ls a re ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt a

“ fa ilure to a c t” c la im beca use such discr etionary

actions ar e not “de manded by law.” Id. at 66.

Th e re fo re , “ a

c la im und e r § 70 6( 1) c an p ro c e e d o nly wher e a pla intiff asser

ts that an ag enc y fa i l ed to take a di s c r e te a g e nc y

a c tio n th a t it

is required

to take.” Id. at 64. “Ab s e n t s u c h an a s s e r

ti o n , a Se c ti o n 7 0 6 ( 1 ) c la im ma y be dismiss ed for

lack of jurisdiction.” Al varado , 509 F.3d at 10 19 –2 0; see also Gros Ve ntre Tribe v. United States , 469 F.3d 801, 814 ( 9th Cir. 2006) (upholding the district court’s dismissal of an A PA claim for lac k of juris d i ct ion be c a us e th e g ov e rnme nt w a s n ot r e qu ir e d “ to t a ke dis c re te nondiscretionar

y actions”)

. Withthe se sta

nd ards in mind, we tur

n to the F arm e rs ’
c la ims

.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 11

III
The F arme rs have no contra ctual rig hts with the Bure au to irrig ation water

obtained as a

result of it s rec lamation works, and t he F arme rs do not contend that they are thirdparty benef iciarie s of the Bu reau’s contra cts with the irrig ation districts. Se e Or ff , 545 U.S

. at 5 9 7–98, 603–04 (h o l d i n g t h at t h e go v ern m en th adn o twa i v edi t s s o v er ei gn immunit y with respe ct t o suits brought by far mers cla iming thi rd -p art y be ne fi c iary

status ); Kla ma th W

ate r Use rs ProtectiveAss’n v. Patterson , 204 F.3d 1206, 1209, 1211–12 (9th Cir. 1999) (c onstruing c ontrac t betwee n the B urea u and the California O reg on Power Company an d h olding that irrig ators we re not intende d third-par ty benef iciarie s).

Rather than ba sing thei r claims in contrac t, the Fa rmers argue that var iou s re c lamatio n sta tut e s inde pe nd e ntl y imp os e mandatory

obligations upon the Bure au to di stribute more water to the irrig ation districts. The Fa rmers c ontend they

are e nti tle d to wh a te ve r a mou nt of wate r t

he y his tor ic a lly

pu t to be ne fi c ia l us e and

that th e B ur e a

u ma y us e on ly “ surp lus ” water for a ny purpose other

than irrig ation. Op. B r. at 20.

The Fa rmers divide their cla ims int o three g roups. They
c on te nd that th e B ur e a

u is vio lati ng st a tut or

y du tie s ( 1) to

“ op e rate ” the San L uis Un it i n a mann e r t hat f ull y uti lize s it for irrigation above other purpose s, (2) to “e x erc ise” its water rig hts to S an L

uis water, an d (3 ) t o “re coup Projec t costs.” Op. B r. at 16, 27, 39. We conc lude that none of the statutes identified by

the Fa rm er s require s the Bur eau to take a discrete nondiscretionar

y action.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 12

A

We first consider w hether four f eder al statutes impose on the B ur e a u a mand a tor

y du ty to “ op erate” the CV P so a s to provide the F arme rs with their pre fer red a mount of water

. 1

Section 5 2 1 o f Title 43 of the U nited States Code authorizes the Secr etar

y “to enter into co ntrac t to supply

water from any projec t irrigat i on sy stem for other purposes than irrigati on ” provide d that “no water shall be f urnished for

the uses af oresa id if the delivery

of such water sha ll be detrimental to the water ser vice f or such irrigation projec t, nor to the rig hts of any

prior appr o p ri ator.” 43 U.S.C. § 521 (empha sis added). The Fa rmers rel y o n § 521 to argue that the ir land s a re su ff e ri ngjus t su c h a

de tr ime nt a

nd that, the re fo re , th e B ur e a

u mu st o pe rate the Sa

n L uis Un it t o provide them with more ir rig ation water b efor e distributing
wate r f or no n- ir ri g a tio n p ur

po se s.
T h e f a t al fl aw i nt h e F arm er s ’ a rgu m en ti s t h at al t h o u gh they alleg e g ener ally t h at they are being harme d by

the B ur e a u’ s p ra c tic e of

a llo c a tin g wate r f

or the pr ote c tio n o f f

ish
and wi ldl if e – a purp os e wh ic h, lik e ir ri g a tio n, the B ur e a

u is require d to promote under the CVPI A – t h ey h ave not identified a sing le contra ct as a cause of that harm. F urther, the statut e do e s not de sc ri be any sp e c if ic a c tio n th e B ur e a

u is require d to take in the eve nt an irrig ato r cla ims detriment
re su lti ngfr om a

no n- ir ri g a tio n r e c lamatio n c on tr a c t. T hu s, without addressing the Fa rmers’ argument that they are prior appropr iators within the meaning of § 521, we conclude that t h e s e c l a i m s f

a i l f o r l a c k o f a d i s c r e t e s t a tu t o r

y d u t y.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 13

2

The F arme rs next cite sect i o n 2 of the CVP Act, which provides for

“the sa le of e lectric ener gy ” gene rate d by the CVP “in order to pe rmit the full utili z at i o n of the wor ks
c on str uc te d” to a c c omp lis h th e CV P’ s p ur po se s. B ecause se c tio n 2 a lso state s th a t “ the CV P dam and re se rv oir s ‘ sh a ll be u s ed , ’ after rive r re g ulation, for ‘irr igation’ and other

‘ uses ,’” the Fa

rmers claim the entire inf

rastruc ture of the CVP
mus t be “ us e d” fo r i rr ig a tio n be fo re the B ur e a u ma y dis tr ibute water for non- irrig ati o n p u rposes. Op. B r. at 22 (quoting CVP Act § 2) (e mphasis added)

. The statute, a s amende d by the C VPI A, l ists the purposes of the CVP – e.g ., improving na v i gat ion, river r egulation, irrig ation, fish and wildlife prote ction and re storation, etc. –
and a uth or ize s th e sa le of

e le c tr icity

to a c c omp lis h th os e purposes. Sec tion 2 does not indicate in the slighte st that the Bur eau mu st

take any no nd isc re tio na

ry a c tio n, muc h le ss deliver a cer tain amount of water to its irrig ation contra ctors
so that th os e c on tr a c tor s c an th e n s e ll i t to the F arm e rs

. 3

The F arme rs also re ly

on the sec ond s en t ence of sec tion 1(a) of the San L

uis Act, which states that the “prin cipal eng ineer ing f

eatur es” of

the San Luis Unit “shall be a dam and re servoir . . . and nec essar y pumping plants, distribution sy stems, drains, cha

nnels, levee s, flood works and r elated fac iliti es.” The Fa

rmers r ely

on our dec ision in Firebaugh Canal for the pr oposition t hat this statutory lang uag e cr eate s a mandatory

duty to distribute more wate r for irrig ation.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 14 Firebaugh Canal

involved a cha lleng e to the Secr etar y of the Interior’ s failure to complete constr u ct i on of a ma ster interce ptor drain f

or the San Luis U nit. 203 F.3d at 571–72. Th e ma jor ity he ld t hat be c a us e se c tio n 1(a) of the San L uis Act states that the pr incipal eng ineer ing f eat u re s of the San Luis Unit “shall” include “ nece ssary . . . drains,” the ag ency was re quired to construc t the interce ptor drain. Id. at 573–75. Firebaugh Canal

de sc ri be d th e g ov e rnme nt’ s r e sp on sibi lity
u n d er § 1 (a ) a s a m an d at o ry “du t y t o p ro v i d e d ra i n age service” a nd held that providing such ser vice “ constitute[d] ag ency action unlawf

ully withheld under § 706( 1).” Id. at 570, 578. Although the majority held t hat “the district c ourt
ca nco mp el t h e D e p a rt m en to f Int er i o r t o p ro v i d e d ra i n age service as mandated by the San Luis A ct,” it re cog nized that

“ the dis tr ic t c ourt c an no t e lim ina te age nc ydis c re tio n a s to how it sat isfies the d

r a i n age requirem ent .” Id. at 578 (empha sis added).

Th e F arm e rs argue that se c tio n 1 (a ), a s in te rp re ted in Firebaugh C

anal , require s the Bur eau to distribute the F arm e rs ’ p re fe rr e d amou nt o f i rr ig a tio n w a te r b e fo re it
e ng ag es in

an y f is h an d w il d li f e p r o te c ti o ne f

f o rts

. We d i s a g r e e tha t Firebaugh Canal stands for so attenuated a pr op os iti on . Sec tio n 1 (a ) o f t he San L

uis Ac t si mpl y de sc ri be s th e ne c e ssa

ry e ng ine e ri ngfe a tur e s o f t

he San L uis Unit, and Firebaugh Canal simply holds that the ag ency was re qu ir e d to c on str

uc t th e int e rc e pto r dr a in. Ne ith e r t he statut e nor Fi r eb a ugh Canal

say s any thi ngin t e rm s o f a

du ty to distribute a par

ticular amount of water

for irr iga tion.

Moreove r, bec ause Firebaugh Canal was de cided be fore the Supreme Court dec ided S U WA , we did not then consider wh e th e r “ p r o v id [i n g ] dr a in a g e s e r v ic e ” w o u ld

h aveS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 15
constituted a di

s c r e te age n cy

action. Id. a t 57 8. Th e c a se likely would have co m e o u t differ ently , beca use – as we acknow ledg ed – the B urea u has discre tion under section 1(a) to decide how to pr ovide dra inag e ser vice. How ever , we ne ed not determine w heth er Firebaugh Canal rema ins good la

w afte r S U WA , beca

use eve n assuming it does, t h e F arme rs do not dispute that the Bur eau is providing water for irr iga tion – just not as much as they

would like.

4

The F arme rs’ last “ope ration” claim is based on se ction 6 of the Rec lamation Act, codif ied at 43 U.S.C. § 491. Section 491 “author ize[ s] and direct[s] ” the Sec reta ry of the Interior “to use the r ecla

matio n fund for

the oper ation and maintenanc e of a ll reser voirs and irrig at i on works
c on str uc te d” un de r t

he Re c lamatio n A c t.
The Fa rmers asser

t that the word “oper ation” means “utiliz ation of the works as fully as prac ticable.” Op. Br

. at 18. The a rg ument g oes as f

ollows: Be cause the Reclamation Act dea ls with irrigati on projec ts, those pr o j ec t s must be operated as fully

as pra cticable for irri

gation befor e they

can be us e d f or no n- ir ri g a tio n p ur

po se s.
The F arme rs would hav e u s ignor e eve ry word in the statute other than the word “operation.” Section 491 does not
re qu ire the B ur e a

u to take any

pa rt ic ula r a c tio n in

its manag ement of its re clamation proje cts. I t simply provides that the B urea

u will use a dedic ated f

un d ing sour ce – which
was e sta bli sh e d b y

§ 1 of the Re c lamatio n A c t, 4 3 U .S. C. § 391 – for whatever action it chooses to take . Dec isions on how to operate the CVP a

re left to the Bur eau’ s discretion andS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 16
thus cannot be c ompelled under § 706(1). S

ee S U WA , 542 U.S. at 64.

B

We ne x t a ddress the F arme rs’ c laims that the Bur eau ha s violated its alleg ed duty to exercise its water rig hts within t he San L uis Un it.

1

Th e F arm e rs re ly

on se c tio n 8 of the R e c lamatio n A c t,
co d if ie d in p art a t 4 3 U

. S. C. § 3 8 3 , an d s e c ti o n 1 7 0 2 o f the Ca lif or nia Wat e r C od e . Se c tio n 8 state s in pa rt , Nothing in this Act shall be construed as aff ecting. . . the l aws of any

State or Ter

ritory
re l ati ng to the control, appr opriation, use, or distribution of water use d in irrig ation, or any vested rig ht acquire d there under , and the Secre tary of the I n t erior, in carr

y ing out the p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s A c t , s h a l l p r o c e e d in confor mity with such laws . . . . 43 U.S.C. § 383. This section require s that the B urea u comply with “any

condition on the ‘control, a ppropria t i o n, use, or distribution of water’ throug h a fe dera l rec lamation projec t that is n o t inconsistent with clear cong ressional direc tives respe cting the projec t.” Cal ifo rn ia , 438 U.S. at 672 (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 383). Thus, state l aw restrictions on the Bur eau’ s water use are incorporated into the R eclamation Act so long a s they

are consistent with other fe dera l law.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 17
Th e F arm e rs c la im that th e B ur e au’s fai lur e to r e le a se more water to the irrigation districts violates section 1702 of the Cali for

nia Wat e r C od e . U nd e r C a lif or nia law, a pe rm it holder may

apply to the State Water R esourc es Control Boa rd (“B oard” ) for

a cha ng e in the “pur

pose of use.” Cal. Water Code § 1701. Secti o n 1 702 states that the B oard ma y not g ra nt a ny su c h a pp lic a tio n unle ss i t f

ind s th a t th e pe rm it holder ha s “establish[ed] t o the satisfac tion of the [B]oard .

. . that the cha

ng e will not operate to the injury of any leg al user of the water involved.” Cal. Water Code § 1702. Ac cording to the Fa rmers, this “no injury ” rule require s that the B urea u deliver the ir pref

err ed volum e of irrig ation water beca use the amount of water they

curr ently rec eive f rom the irrig ation dis tr ic ts i s in su ff

ic ie nt t o ir

ri g a te a ll o f t

he ir land s. We disag ree

. The plain mea ning of section 1702 re quires that the Bo ar

d make a “no injury ” findingprior to appr oving
a c ha ng e in a wate r pe rm it. I t do e s no t ins tr uc t the B ur e a

u to d o an y t h i n g.
2

The F arme rs’ ne x t claim reg ardingth e Bureau’ s alleg ed duty to exercise its water

rig hts relies o n another part of
se c tio n 8 of

the Re c lamatio n A c t. O ri g ina lly e na c te d a s a proviso to section 8 and now codified at 43 U.S.C. § 372, the statute provides that “ [t ]he right to the us e of w ater acquir ed under [the Reclamation Act] shall be appur tenant to the land i rr i g ated, a

nd b e n e fi c ia l u s e s h a ll

b e th e b a s is , th e m e a s u re, and the limit of the right .” 43 U.S.C. § 372 (empha sis added).

Section 372 is the Fa

rmers’ answe r t o the conundrum that nowher e within the many statutes upon which they rely doesS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 18
the re a pp e ar a ny langua g e sp e c if

y ing the a mou

nt of wate r t o which the F arme rs ar e supposedly entitle d

. T h ey

claim that under § 3 7 2 t hey

are entitled to that amount of wate r they have be n eficially

used ea ch y ear

when the B urea

u allocate d
e no ug h w a te r fo r the F arm e rs to ir ri g a te 10 0% of the ir

land s.
Whether or not the Farmer s can be considere d as having
r i g h t s u n d e r t h e R e c l a m a t i o n A c t w h e n t h e y d o n ot h old contra cts with the Burea

u for the pr ovision of irrig ation water , the statement that the benef icial use of water

is the “mea sure” of a wat er rig ht i s si mpl y

too va g ue to b e c on str

ue d a s a cong ressional dire ctive to the Burea u to take a discrete action such as delivering the Fa

rmers’ pref

err ed amount of irr iga

tion
wate r. Th e a mou

nt o f w a te r t

he F arm e rs wan t is jus t th a t – t h e a m o u n tt h a tt h e y want , not an am o unt to which they are l ega l l y en t i t l ed

. S i mp l y

p u t , t o r e fe r t o § 3 7 2 as re qu i ri n g a “discre te” a ction is to dist ort the mea ning of the word.

3

The F arme rs’ last “e x erc ise” c l aim rests on the fina l sentenc e of se ction 1(a) of t he S an L uis Act, which provide s in r e le va nt p art :
Construction of the S an L uis unit shall not be
commence d until the Secre t ary has . . .
se c ur e d, or

ha s sa tis fa c tor y a ssu ra nc e of his ability to secure , all rig hts to the use of water which are nece ssary

to car ry out the purposes of the un it a nd the te rm s and

c on dit ion s o f t

his Act . . . .

San Luis Act § 1(a)

.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 19
The F arme rs conc ede t h at the B urea u acquir ed the
ne c e ssa ry wate r r ight s lon g a g o a nd a g re e that it

“ du ly
ex er ci s ed the rights for

deca des.” O p. Br . at 39. They contend, howe ver, that the Bur eau’ s “cur rent non-ir

rig ation
us e , a nd e ve n n on -u se , o f t

he wa te r i s im

pe rm iss ibl y rende ring the rig hts insecure .” Id.
By its plain terms, t his statute imposes a condition only on the construction of

the San L

uis Un it. B e fo re the Un it c ou ld be bu ilt , the B ur e a

u h a d to a c qu ir e the ne c e ssa ry wate r r ig hts
– w hic h it did . T he re is n oth ing in the statut e e ve n r e mot e ly sug g esting that the B urea u must deliver a cer

tain amount of irrig ation water

prior to eng ag ing in f ish and wild l ife pr ote c tio n e ff

or ts.

C Finally , the Fa

rmers c ontend that various statutes require the B urea u to sell more irrig ation water to rec oup the costs of constructing , operating, a nd maintaining t he CVP. None of the statut e s h e lps the F arm e rs

. Congr ess in

te n d e d th a t r ecla mation projects would re coup the ir ow n c os ts by re qu ir ingpa y me nts fr om t

ho se wh o b e ne fi t from the fe de ra l g ov e rnme nt’ s r e c lamatio n e ff or ts. L andowne rs who irrigate their land w ith reclamation water must pay an oper ation an d maintenanc e cha rg e “wheneve r water service is available f

or the irr igat i o n of his land.” 43 U.S.C. § 492. Charg es to r ecoup the cost of construc tion “shall be de ter m ined with a view of re turning to the
rec l amation fund the estimated cost of construc tion of the project.” 43 U.S.C. § 461 (emphasis adde d). The B urea u must provide notice of “the charg es which sha ll be made pe rS AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 20

acr e upon” the land to be irrig ated, “ the number of annual installments in which such char g es shall b e p aid[,] and the time when such pa

y ments shall commence .” 43 U.S.C. § 419.

Th e Re c lamat ion

Ac t a lso state s th a t c on tr a c ts w ith irrig ation districts f

or the delivery of irrig ation water “shall be

. . . at su c h r a te s as in the Secre tary’s judgment will produce
reve nues at lea st sufficient to co v er an appropr iate shar e of the annua l op e ratio n a

nd ma int e na

nc e c os t and

an a pp ro pr iate sh are of su c h f

ixed c ha rg e s as the Sec retary dee ms proper .” 4 3 U

. S. C. § 4 8 5 h ( e ) ( e mp h a s is a d d e d )

. A n y s u c h contra ct must “provid[e] for pa

y ment by the district or districts of the cost of construc ting, ope ra t i n g , and maintaining the works

. . . , su c h c os t of

c on str uc tin g to b e re pa id wi thi n s uc h te rm s of y e ars as theSe c re tar

yma y fin d to bene c essa ry , in any
e ve nt n ot m or e tha

n for ty y e ars .” 43 U. S.C. § 4 23 e (e mph a sis added)

. As the a bo ve -e mph a size d la

ngua g e ill us tr a te s, Con gr e ss un mis ta ka bly ve sted wi th t

he a g e nc y

the dis c re tio n to d e t e r m i n e h o w t o r e c o u

p t h e c o s t s o f

i r r i g a t i o np r o

j e c t s

. In passing the rec oupment statutes, Congr ess’s g oals wer e broa d and g ener al – “the r ehabilitation of t he seve ral re clamation projec ts and the insuring of their future succ ess by placing the m up on a so un d op e rativ e a nd bu sin e ss ba sis .” 43 U. S.C. § 423f. Cong ress de leg ated to the Sec reta ry of the Interior, and by extension t o the B urea

u, the discre tion to determine the best wa

y to meet those g oals. None of these re coupment statutes require s the discre te ag ency action the F arme rs see k. Th e re fo re , th e F arm e rs c ann ot c omp e l th e B ur e a u to a c t.S AN L U I S U NI T F OOD P RO D U CE RS V

. U NI TED S TA TES 21

IV

I n the end, the F arme rs’ c l aim s boil down to a broad, prog rammatic ch alleng e to the B urea u’s oper ation and
mana g e me nt o f t

he CV P and , a s su c h, are no t c og niza ble under the APA. Although the Fa rmers contend t hat t he CVP is d e sig ne d to pr omo te ir ri g a tio n o ver t he prot e c tio n o f f ish
and wi ldl if e , Co ng re ss d e c ide d ot her wi se . T he B ur e a

u is ta sk e d with “ op e rat[in g ] the Ce ntr a l V a lle y Pr oje c t to me e t all obligations under St at e and F eder al law, includingbut not l i m i t e d t o t h e F e d e r a l E n d a n g e r e d S p e c i e s A c t

. ” C V P IA § 3406(b) ( emphasis adde d). That is a ma ndatory g oal. The decision of how to achie ve it , howeve r, is the B urea u’s. None of the statutes identified by t h e Farmers r equire that the B ur e a u de liv e r the F arm e rs ’ p re fe rr e d amou nt o f w ate r t o it s ir ri g a tio n c on tr a c tor s. F or thi s r e a so n, the F arm e rs ’ A PA claims fail for

lack of subject matter jur isdiction.

AF F IRM ED

.