A legal dispute between the federal government and California’s State Water Resources Control Board over water salinity standards in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, with federal attorneys arguing that seven years is too long to wait for resolution on what they characterize as discriminatory treatment.
The conflict centers on a 2018 amendment to salinity standards that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation claims unfairly singles out federal operations with more stringent requirements than those applied to other water users in the region. Attorney Frederick Turner, representing the United States, told the three-judge panel that the amended plan discriminates against the federal government on its face by imposing different salinity standards.
“Managing water quality in the Bay Delta is certainly a complicated issue,” Turner stated during oral arguments, emphasizing that the discriminatory terms are already in effect and binding his client through conditions attached to its water rights.
The case stems from a 2023 lower court ruling that determined the Bureau of Reclamation could not claim discrimination regarding the amended salinity standards. The federal government appealed that decision, seeking to have the matter heard in federal court.
Dylan Johnson, representing the California State Water Resources Control Board, countered the federal government’s arguments by drawing a critical distinction between the plan’s objectives and its actual implementation. Johnson maintained that while the 2018 plan exists on paper, it has not been implemented, making the issue premature for judicial review.
U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, appointed by Donald Trump, pressed both sides on the timing issue, noting that the plan clearly makes distinctions and imposes different standards. “Why isn’t it a live question now? Why can’t this just be hashed out now?” Bress questioned, suggesting that amending the plan might offer the simplest path to resolution.
Johnson explained that the water board retains authority to impose varying salinity requirements on different entities and that multiple complex criteria must be evaluated before determining water release requirements for various users. This comprehensive assessment process has not yet occurred, he argued, making it impossible for the appeals court to determine whether the United States actually faces discrimination.
The panel, which included Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Joe Biden appointee, and Judge Kim Wardlaw, a Bill Clinton appointee, also heard arguments in a separate water-related case involving the Bureau of Reclamation and environmental groups. That dispute concerns contract conversions between water users and the bureau, with the Center for Biological Diversity and other organizations challenging whether proper environmental reviews were conducted under the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
In that case, attorney Angela Ellis, representing the bureau, explained that the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act required contract conversions when requested by water users, comparing the arrangement to a lease where users could prepay for set amounts of water over specified periods. These prepayments helped fund government water projects while providing favorable terms to incentivize conversions.
Ernest Wright, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that Congress would have explicitly stated if it intended to bypass environmental review requirements for these conversions. Judge Sanchez noted that broader environmental reviews for water projects remain in place, with only specific features exempted from review.
Both cases highlight the ongoing complexity of water management in California, where competing interests, environmental concerns, and regulatory requirements continue to generate legal challenges. The Ninth Circuit panel did not issue decisions in either case on Friday.
Leave a Reply