Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 478

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 417 (1998)

433

Opinion of the Court

Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617, 620 (1971); 3
K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise 13–14
(3d ed. 1994) (“The Court routinely recognizes probable
economic injury resulting from [governmental actions] that
alter competitive conditions as sufﬁcient to satisfy the [Arti-
cle III ‘injury-in-fact’ requirement]. . . . It follows logically
that any . . . petitioner who is likely to suffer economic injury
as a result of [governmental action] that changes market con-
ditions satisﬁes this part of the standing test”).

Appellees’ injury in this regard is at least as concrete as
the injury suffered by the respondents in Bryant v. Yellen,
447 U. S. 352 (1980).
In that case, we considered whether a
rule that generally limited water deliveries from reclamation
projects to 160 acres applied to the much larger tracts of
the Imperial Irrigation District in southeastern California;
application of that limitation would have given large land-
owners an incentive to sell excess lands at prices below the
prevailing market price for irrigated land. The District
Court had held that the 160-acre limitation did not apply, and
farmers who had hoped to purchase the excess land sought
to appeal. We acknowledged that the farmers had not pre-
sented “detailed information about
[their] ﬁnancial re-
sources,” and noted that “the prospect of windfall proﬁts
could attract a large number of potential purchasers” besides
Id., at 367, n. 17. Nonetheless, “even though
the farmers.
they could not with certainty establish that they would be
able to purchase excess lands” if the judgment were re-
versed, id., at 367, we found standing because it was “likely
that excess lands would become available at less than market
prices,” id., at 368. The Snake River appellees have alleged
an injury that is as speciﬁc and immediate as that in Yellen.
See also Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study
Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 72–78 (1978).22

22 The Government argues that there can be an Article III injury only
if Snake River would have actually obtained a facility on favorable terms.
We have held, however, that a denial of a beneﬁt in the bargaining process