## Facts

- Farmers receiving irrigation water from the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project alleged the Bureau of Reclamation delivered less water than they were entitled to receive.
- Farmers contended federal reclamation statutes and related project provisions required the Bureau to prioritize irrigation deliveries and to provide enough water to meet irrigators’ needs before supplying water for other purposes.
- Farmers sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking an order compelling increased irrigation deliveries.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the government, concluding the Bureau had no statutory duty to release a specified amount of irrigation water and that the APA’s final-agency-action requirement was not met.
- Farmers appealed, arguing the Bureau unlawfully withheld a required action under APA § 706(1) by failing to deliver additional irrigation water with priority over non-irrigation uses.

## Issues

1. Whether the farmers identified a reviewable “final agency action” or a discrete agency action “unlawfully withheld” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
2. Whether federal reclamation statutes or related provisions imposed a specific, nondiscretionary duty on the Bureau to deliver a particular quantity or priority of irrigation water to the farmers.
3. Whether the absence of a legally required, discrete action defeated subject-matter jurisdiction under the APA.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States and the Bureau.
- The court held the Bureau was not legally required to take a discrete action to deliver the farmers’ preferred amount of irrigation water before providing water for other purposes.
- The court found no “final agency action” and no action “unlawfully withheld” within the meaning of APA § 706(1).
- Because the farmers failed to establish a discrete, mandatory duty enforceable under the APA, they failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- APA § 706(1) authorizes courts to compel agency action only when the plaintiff identifies a discrete action that the agency is legally required to take.
- General statutory purposes or preferences (including preferences favoring irrigation) do not create a judicially enforceable obligation to deliver specific amounts of water unless the law clearly imposes a mandatory, ministerial duty.
- Broad challenges to an agency’s overall resource-allocation operations are not cognizable under APA § 706(1) absent a specific, required action that has been withheld.
- Without final agency action or a discrete, legally required action withheld, APA review is unavailable and subject-matter jurisdiction is not established.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the farmers could not use the APA to compel increased Central Valley Project irrigation deliveries because they did not identify a discrete, nondiscretionary duty requiring the Bureau to provide their requested water amounts or priorities, leaving no reviewable final agency action and no APA jurisdiction.


San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2013)