Central Delta Water Agency v. Bureau of Reclamation’s Empirical Analysis
452 F.3d 1021 · 2006
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2024
3 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Davis v. Passman · Olsen v. Idaho State Board of Medicine · Central Delta Water Agency v. United States · Magana v. Commonwealth Of The Northern Mariana Islands · Cardenas v. Anzai
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ctions taken pursuant to the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan and State Water Resources Control Board Decision D-1641 (“the 1995 WQCP”) involve the dedication and management of Central Valley Project yield for long-term fishery beneficial use and protection. Such actions are not taken to help meet agricultural or municipal and industrial water quality standards that are set forth in the 1995 WQCP. Most of the fishery beneficial uses and objectives under the 1995 WQCP and in Reclamation’s water rights permits help fulfill the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration purposes and measures authorized by Section 3406(b). Consistent with the June 3, 2003 Ninth Circuit decision, much of the (b)(2) water that is dedicated and managed annually to help meet fishery beneficial use and protection objectives of the 1995 WQCP serves Section 3406(b)(2)’s “primary purpose” of fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River basins of California; (b) to address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitats; (c) to improve the operational flexibility of the Central Valley Project; (d) to increase water-related benefits provided by the Central Valley Project to the State of California through expanded use of voluntary water transfers and improved water conservation; (e) to contribute to the State of California’s interim and long-term efforts to protect the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; (f) to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and industrial and power contractors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“upon enactment of this title[,] dedicate and manage annually eight hundred thousand acre-feet of Central Valley Project yield for [1] the primary purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration purposes and measures authorized by this title; [2] to assist the State of California in its efforts to protect the waters of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and [3] to help meet such obligations as may be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project under State or Federal law following the date of enactment of this title, including but not limited to additional obligations under the Federal Endangered Species Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.