Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 2, 2012No. 17-72955Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partM. Smith, Circuit Judge

While I join in the majority’s conclusion on standing as outlined in Part A of the Analysis section, I respectfully, but strongly, dissent from the other parts of the majority opinion. The truth is that the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) re-categorization of the late June 2004 releases from the Nimbus and New Melones reservoirs was a purely post-hoc rationalization by Interior, when it realized that it would run out of section 3406(b)(2) water to use for the year. Such a post-hoc rationalization flies in the face of what the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA or Act),…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Malat v. RiddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2006
  4. Bay Institute v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  5. Bay Institute v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API