Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the Endangered Species Act applies to the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of the Klamath Project. The court held that the decision did not constitute a judicial taking of Klamath Irrigation District’s water rights and that the district court had jurisdiction because prior exclusive jurisdiction and Colorado River abstention did not apply. Judge Ryan D. Nelson dissented in part, concluding that the contractual obligations at issue did not trigger consultation duties under ESA § 7.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act applies to the Bureau of Reclamation's operation of the Klamath Project, including management of Upper Klamath Lake and releases into the Klamath River.
- Whether the district court's determination that the ESA applied to Klamath Project operations constituted a judicial taking of Klamath Irrigation District's water rights.
- Whether the federal district court had jurisdiction to decide the federal appellees' crossclaim notwithstanding the doctrines of prior exclusive jurisdiction and Colorado River abstention.
Holdings
- Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA applies to the Bureau of Reclamation's operation of the Klamath Project. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson remains controlling precedent for the ESA's applicability to the Klamath Project.
- The district court's determination that the ESA applies to Klamath Project operations was not a judicial taking of Klamath Irrigation District's water rights.
- Neither the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction nor Colorado River abstention barred the district court from deciding whether the ESA applies to the Klamath Project.
Key quotations
“We affirm the district court and hold that: (1) the ESA applies to the Bureau of Reclamation’s operations related to the Klamath Project; (2) the district court’s decision was not a “judicial taking” of KID’s water rights because determining whether the ESA applies to the Klamath Project is not an adjudication of water rights; and (3) the federal district court had jurisdiction to determine this issue because the doctrines of prior exclusive jurisdiction and Colorado River abstention do not apply.” (10)
“Thus, Patterson is still good law, and its holding continues to serve as controlling precedent for Klamath Basin litigation.” (26)
“We hold that there is no reason for the district court to have abstained.” (41-42)
Factual background
The Klamath Project is a federal water-management project authorized in 1905 and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation in Northern California and Southern Oregon. Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River provide habitat for endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon, and the Bureau has conducted ESA consultations that resulted in minimum lake levels and downstream flow requirements. The Project's water-delivery contracts generally provide for equitable allocation of available water and contain shortage provisions, while tribal water and fishing interests also exist in the Basin. An Oregon Water Resources Department order directed the Bureau to stop releasing stored water for ESA-compliance purposes, prompting the federal crossclaim.
Procedural history
The Yurok Plaintiffs filed suit in 2019 challenging the Bureau of Reclamation's 2019 Klamath Project operating plan and ESA consultation. Klamath Water Users Association and Klamath Irrigation District intervened. After KID initiated related state and federal litigation, the federal district court lifted a stay, allowed the United States to pursue a crossclaim concerning an Oregon Water Resources Department order, and bifurcated the case. In February 2023, the district court granted summary judgment on the ESA-related phase-one claim, held that the ESA applied to Klamath Project operations, and enjoined enforcement of the conflicting state order. The Ninth Circuit denied motions to dismiss for mootness, denied a continued stay, and affirmed.