By Brett Stroud

On March 2, 2026, three environmental non-government associations (NGOs)— San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the River—filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the federal government agency responsible for California’s Central Valley Project (CVP). The complaint claims that the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has violated the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the terms of the 2024 Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in consultation with USBR, which sets operational requirements on the CVP to protected endangered and threatened species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). [San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00671 (E.D. Cal.)]

Background

The CVP is one of the largest water projects in the world, built during the Great Depression as a collaborative public works project between the state and federal governments. It provides an annual average of more than 5.6 million acre-feet of water to more than 250 contractor agencies throughout a large portion of the state—for municipal and industrial use, irrigation use, and environmental uses such as wildlife refuges. (USBR, Central Valley Project, https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/.)

The operation of the CVP is intertwined with the operation of the State Water Project (SWP), and both projects are constrained in their ability to deliver water by the strictures of the ESA. In particular, operations in the Delta are restricted due to the effects of diversions on endangered and threatened fish species. Under the ESA, a project operated by a federal agency that might impact a protected species must be supported by a BiOp evaluating the impact, which may include an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) allowing the project to impact the species at certain levels or subject to certain measures that mitigate the harm. The BiOps and ITS governing the operations of the CVP have been the subject of extensive controversy and litigation for decades.

The Trump Administration’s Policy and Action 5

On the day of his inauguration for his second term, President Trump issued a memorandum declaring his policy goal “to route more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to other parts of the state for use by the people there who desperately need a reliable water supply.” (Pres. Memo., Putting People over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to Provide Water to Southern California (Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-people-over-fish-stopping-radical-environmentalism-to-provide-water-to-southern-california/.) Later that month, he issued an executive order that directed several cabinet departments to “take all measures, consistent with all applicable authorities, to ensure adequate water resources in Southern California.” (Exec. Order No. 14181, 90 Fed.Reg. 8747 (Jan. 31, 2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/31/2025-02174/emergency-measures-to-provide-water-resources-in-california-and-improve-disaster-response-in-certain.) It also included a directive “to operate the CVP to deliver more water and produce additional hydropower … notwithstanding any contrary State or local laws.” (Id., § 2(c).)

The order also directed USBR to reconsider the plan for long-term operations of the CVP, which it proceeded to do in 2025. (USBR, Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_project_details.php?Project_ID=54661.) USBR formulated a new set of operational criteria, referred to as “Action 5,” which it approved and adopted on December 4, 2025. (USBR, Record of Decision: Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (Dec. 2025), https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=57167.)

The Complaint

The NGOs allege that CVP operations in 2026 have exceeded the take limits set in the 2024 BiOp. They also allege that USBR has failed to take mitigation actions required by the 2024 BiOp—specifically, adjusting Delta exports to achieve certain flow targets in the San Joaquin River when certain take thresholds are met. In addition to these claimed ESA violations, the NGOs claim that the Action 5 operations violate D-1641, the water rights decision issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) that places conditions on the operations of the CVP. The SWRCB submitted extensive, negative comments on the Action 5 proposal. (Assistant Deputy Director Diane Riddle, SWRCB, to Acting Regional Director Adam Nickels, USBR, Nov. 10, 2025, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26331183-2025-11-10-swrcb-letter-to-us-bureau-of-reclamation-regarding-action-5/.)

Finally, they claim that implementation of Action 5 will result in further violations and that it should not be implemented without further consultation and a revised BiOp.

Conclusion and Implications

This lawsuit by the NGOs has the potential to significantly impact operations of the CVP. In addition to seeking an injunction against further violations of the 2024 BiOp, the NGOs are also seeking a court order requiring a new consultation that would result in a new—perhaps more restrictive—BiOp.

But this case also represents a broader clash between state and federal authorities over Delta policy and may be only one front in that conflict. The complaint is available online at: (Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.483097/gov.uscourts.caed.483097.1.0.pdf