U.S. Court Frees Water for Delta and Wildlife Refuges

Freeing more than 1 million acre-feet of contested water, a federal appeals court Wednesday removed a significant legal barrier to the historic accord recently reached to protect the Sacramento Delta estuary.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower judge’s injunction that had halted release of water earmarked for the delta and for wildlife refuges in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River valleys.

Authorized for fish and wildlife needs under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the water diversion was opposed by several Central Valley water districts, which argued that it violated their contractual rights to the water and would cause economic and environmental damage to the valley.

The delta accord signed last week by state and federal officials counted on the availability of much of the contested water to help protect several ailing species of fish.

The largest estuary in the West, the delta is home to more than 100 species of fish and is the source of most of the state’s fresh water. The accord ended years of political battling by urban, agricultural and environmental interests.

But its implementation was not assured until a variety of legal challenges to the water by agricultural interests were resolved.

Wednesday’s court action did not resolve all challenges. The Westlands Water District and other Central Valley water customers contend that they have been illegally deprived of additional water under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The water made available Wednesday had been set aside for environmental purposes by legislation signed by President George Bush in 1992 over protests from farmers.

Water districts, including the huge Westlands Water District, moved to delay implementation by claiming that the new law violated the National Environmental Policy Act. They sought relief in court, where U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger issued a preliminary injunction in May.

Wanger ruled that an environmental study was required on “the extent of harm that will be visited upon their lands, water supplies and the human environment.”

But the appeals court, in an opinion by Judge Jerome Farris, said the phrase “upon enactment of this title” in the law means that implementation is triggered by enactment, and that no environmental studies were needed.

Wendy Pulling, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the appellate ruling was “a terrific Christmas present” for wildlife.

“This means the water will be delivered,” she said.

Associated Press contributed to this report.