San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Malat v. RiddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2006
- Bay Institute v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Bay Institute v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.