## Facts

- California planned diversion and transportation facilities as part of the California Water Project, including a proposed “Peripheral Canal” around the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta.
- Sierra Club and two private citizens sought to enjoin construction and operation of certain diversion facilities.
- Respondents alleged the facilities would violate § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, which forbids unauthorized obstructions to the navigable capacity of U.S. waters.
- The district court allowed respondents to proceed on an implied private cause of action under § 10 and granted relief on that theory.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning the statute protected private parties suffering “special injury” from unauthorized obstructions.

## Issues

1. Whether § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 creates, expressly or by implication, a private right of action permitting private parties to seek injunctive relief for alleged violations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that § 10 does not create an implied private right of action for those alleging injury from a violation.
- Because respondents lacked authority to sue under § 10, the Court did not reach whether the challenged state projects required federal permits under the Act.

## Legal Principles

- The controlling question for implying a private right of action is congressional intent to create a private remedy.
- A statute that states a general prohibition and does not confer rights on a particular class ordinarily does not support an implied private cause of action.
- Legislative history indicating a statute was enacted to benefit the public at large and to empower federal enforcement weighs against implying private enforcement.
- Existing public enforcement mechanisms (including agency and federal officer enforcement) are evidence that Congress did not intend to supplement them with private suits.

## Conclusion

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act is a broad regulatory prohibition enforced by public authorities, not a rights-conferring provision enforceable by private plaintiffs; accordingly, private parties may not sue to enjoin alleged § 10 violations, and courts may not decide the merits of such claims absent congressional authorization.


California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287 (1981)