Case Detail
| Case Title | AQUALLIANCE v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv01018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-06-16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-09-30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | AQUALLIANCE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Aqualliance, a non-profit dedicated to defending northern California waterways, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Land Reclamation for records concerning the amount of water transferred in 2013 under the purview of federal and California water authorities. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, indicated that it was considered a voluminous request, and asked for clarification. Aqualliance provided the needed clarification and BLM indicated it would begin providing interim responses, and, further, that some information might be exempt. Aqualliance submitted a second FOIA request to BLM for records of all applications for approval of specific water transfers from the Sacramento River watershed to south of the Delta. The agency acknowledged receipt of the second request and again indicated that its size meant it would take a considerable amount of time to process. The agency further told Aqualliance that it was reviewing the documents for exemptions. The agency then provided an interim response to the first request. After receiving nothing further pertaining to either request, Aqualliance filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 15-5325 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [25] FOIA Project Annotation: In the first substantive ruling on (Exemption 9 (data about wells) ever to be decided in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has ruled that the exemption applies to both water and oil wells and that the names and addresses of various participants in water transfer program or real water determinations are not protected by Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). The case involved a request by AquAlliance to the Bureau of Land Reclamation for records concerning permits for water transfers in the state of California in 2013 and 2014. The agency redacted data relating to well completion, well construction, and the physical location of wells under both Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and Exemption 9. It also redacted identifying information about participants in water transfers or real water determinations. AquAlliance contended that Exemption 9 did not apply to information about water wells, but only to information about oil wells, as seemed to be suggested by the exemption's scant legislative history. Jackson found the legislative history did not help much. She pointed out that "the text is plain and unambiguous; on its face, no distinction is drawn among types of wells, and the text provides no reason to think that water wells would be excluded from the exemption's purview. What is more, although few courts have had occasion to interpret or apply Exemption 9, not a single court has ever read the statute to include the construction that Plaintiff urges." Jackson noted that "the legislative history that AquAlliance points to falls short of the organization's intended goal, insofar as it does not establish that oil and gas wells were Congress's sole concern in adopting Exemption 9. To be sure, the contemporaneous witnesses referenced in the House Report had oil and gasâ€"and the problem of improper speculationâ€"on their minds when Exemption 9 was added, but as other courts have noted in this context, 'water [too] is a precious, limited resource,' and one of increasing scarcity and significance in the twenty-first century. Thus, the expressed purpose of including a FOIA exemption to prevent a windfall for speculators also applies in the context of water wells, and this Court sees no reason that the House Report compels a strained reading of Exemption 9." AquAlliance argued the exemption only applied to proprietary or technical or scientific secrets. Jackson rejected that restriction, noting that "the plain language of Exemption 9 permits the Bureau to redact maps and construction details that reveal geological and geophysical information about the wells, and this Court finds that, even when one draws all factual inferences in favor of the Plaintiff, the Bureau has carried its burden of demonstrating that it has fully discharged its FOIA obligations with regard to this information under the circumstances presented here." Finding that the privacy interest in being part of a water transfer program was de minimis and AquAlliance had shown that disclosure would shed light on government activities, Jackson rejected the agency's exemption 6 claim.
Issues: Exemption 9 - Data on wells, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
