Firebaugh Canal Water District, et al v. United States, et al, No. 11-17715 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseFirebaugh claimed that a lack of adequate drainage in part of the Central Valley Project (CVP) caused poor quality water flow into its service area. Firebaugh argued that Interior should be ordered to provide the necessary drainage or, alternatively, to pay money damages. The court held that Interior's broad discretion in matters of drainage precluded both claims. Firebaugh's proposals did not involve discrete actions that Interior was legally required to take; rather, they involved matters of discretion and, as such were beyond the scope of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(1). Providing irrigation water without concomitantly providing adequate drainage for it was a discretionary function and, therefore, not actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674.
Court Description: Water Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of the Interior in an action challenging Interior’s management of California’s Central Valley Project. The panel held that Interior’s broad discretion in matters of drainage precluded the Firebaugh Canal Water District and the Central California Irrigation District’s claims that a lack of adequate drainage in part of the Central Valley Project caused poor quality water flow into the District’s service area, and that Interior should be ordered to provide the necessary drainage or pay money damages. The panel also held that Interior’s discretion put Interior’s actions beyond the scope of both the Administrative Procedure Act and Federal Tort Claims 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.