State agencies and local farmers (Delta parties) sued the United States Bureau of Reclamation and several administrative officials (the Bureau) challenging the Bureau's plan to release reservoir water in order to comply with federal fish habitat restoration requirements. They claimed that the Bureau was violating the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA)[1] by releasing water from the New Melones Unit Reservoir under the Central Valley Project (the Project) that would eventually result in downstream salinity levels that exceed the state Vernalis Salinity Standard (the Standard). The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's determination that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Bureau would comply with the Vernalis Salinity Standard in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it affirmed the district court's denial of the Delta parties' motion for summary judgment and its grant of the Bureau's motion for summary judgment.

The Project includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, which meet at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, mix together, and flow into San Francisco Bay. The Bureau, a division of the Department of Interior, operates the Project and distributes water resources for beneficial uses according to permits it holds from the California State Resource Board (State Board). The Bureau must also comply with the CVPIA, which "demands that the Project implement a significant fish habitat protection program, but that it do so in accordance with the applicable state water use permits."[2] One state permit standard--the Vernalis Salinity Standard--requires the Bureau not to allow electrical conductivity measurement exceeding 0.7-1.0 mmhos/cm depending on the time of year.

In 1997, the Bureau adopted an operation plan for releasing water from the New Melones Unit, a reservoir in the San Joaquin River system. This plan included water releases aimed at maintaining wildlife habitats but that were projected to result in violations of the Vernalis Salinity Standard ten percent of the time over seventy-one years. However, by deviating from the plan when necessary the Bureau had thus far avoided exceeding the Standard since 1994.

The Delta parties sued the Bureau arguing that it should not be allowed, pursuant to the CVPIA, to release water from the New Melones Unit[3] or purchase water to supplement the water dedicated to fish and wildlife[4] unless it dedicated sufficient water to ensure that it did not exceed the Vernalis Salinity Standard. The Delta parties argued that the plan for the New Melones Unit would decrease water flow during irrigation months to the point where the salinity level would damage crops irrigated downstream in the region of Vernalis.

At first, the district court held that the Delta parties lacked standing because the Bureau had not violated the standard since 1994, but the Ninth Circuit reversed holding that the Bureau's projections created sufficient risk of harm to confer standing.[5] The district court then held on remand that the Delta parties could not show "within reasonable scientific certainty" that the Bureau would exceed the Standard and, therefore, it granted the Bureau's motion for summary judgment.[6]

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo[7] and sought to "'determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmoving party, whether there [were] any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law.'"[8] First, the Court rejected the Delta parties' argument that the Ninth Circuit's determination that they had standing in Central Delta I removed the Delta parties' obligation to show an actual violation of the CVPIA, stating "our decision on standing does not obviate the need to address the merits of the litigation."[9] Second, the Court concluded that the Bureau was not required under the CVPIA to "dedicate and allocate a specific amount of water to meet the Vernalis Salinity Standard before it may do anything else."[10] The Delta parties had seized on the language of § 3406(b)(2) of the CVPIA.[11] That section directs the Secretary to manage 800,000 acre-feet of  "Central Valley Project yield" and then defines that yield as "... the delivery capability of the Central Valley Project during the 1928-1934 drought period after fishery, water quality, and other flow and operational requirements . . . have been met.[12] However, the Court determined that this was "merely a definition"[13] and that the clear language of the act "does not direct the Bureau to allocate a specific amount of water to pre-CVPIA purposes prior to exercising its discretion to achieve its other purposes."[14] The Bureau cannot violate the Vernalis Salinity Standard, but Congress left it up to the agency to determine "how to comply with those standards."[15] Furthermore, given that the Bureau had not violated that standard since 1994 the court noted that the Bureau's discretion "seem[ed] to be working just fine."[16]

The court then held that the Delta parties had "failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Bureau [would] comply with the standard in the foreseeable future."[17] According to the court, there were two major flaws in the Delta parties' reliance on the model in the Bureau's plan for the New Melones Unit: (1) the model was based on hypothetical water conditions that would "undoubtedly and frequently change"[18]; and (2) the ten percent violation estimate assumed that the Bureau would not modify its operation of the Project as conditions changed. The Bureau could modify its operation, had done so in the past, and there was "nothing in the record [suggesting] that it will not continue to do so in the future."[19]

In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling and determined that the Delta parties failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Bureau would violate the Vernalis Salinity Standard. The Bureau's projection that it might violate the standard in the future was not enough considering that Congress in the CVPIA gave the Bureau discretion to deviate from its plan to meet standards and the Bureau had done so effectively for more than a decade. Therefore, the Court ruled that the Delta parties did not have a right to injunctive relief and affirmed the district court's opinion.