San Luis Unit Food Producers, et al v. United States, et al, No. 11-16122 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseFarmers that irrigate their land using water from the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project claimed that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 501 et seq., compelled the Bureau to provide their irrigation districts with more water than it was currently providing. Farmers argued that several federal statutes required the Bureau to provide irrigators with sufficient irrigation water to satisfy Farmers' needs before delivering water to any other party for any other purpose. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bureau on several grounds. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), the court held that the Bureau was not legally required to take a discrete action to deliver Farmers' preferred amount of San Luis Unit water for irrigation before it provided water for others. The Bureau retained the discretion to allocate San Luis water among various parties to satisfy its various obligations. There was no final agency action, nor was there any action that the Bureau had unlawfully withheld. Farmers' claims amounted to a broad programmatic attack on the way the Bureau generally operated the Central Valley Project and therefore Farmers have not established subject matter jurisdiction under the APA.
Court Description: Water Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the United States Bureau of Reclamation in an action brought by farmers under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking to compel the Bureau to provide irrigation districts with more water. The panel held that the Bureau was not legally required to take a discrete action to deliver the farmers’ preferred amount of water from the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project for irrigation before it provides water for other purposes. The panel held that there was no final agency action, nor was there any action that the Bureau had unlawfully withheld. The panel concluded that the farmers had not established subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.