Irrigation v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 7-19417C,No. 7-19415C,No. 7-19412C,No. 7-19420C,No. 7-19407C,No. 7-19413C,No. 7-19414C,No. 7-194C,No. 7-19404C,No. 7-19410C,No. 7-19406C,No. 7-19408C,No. 7-19403C,No. 7-19419C,No. 7-19405C,No. 7-19411C,No. 1-591L,No. 7-19401C,No. 7-19402C,No. 7-19418C,No. 7-19416C,No. 7-19409C,1-591L,7-194C,7-19401C,7-19402C,7-19403C,7-19404C,7-19405C,7-19406C,7-19407C,7-19408C,7-19409C,7-19410C,7-19411C,7-19412C,7-19413C,7-19414C,7-19415C,7-19416C,7-19417C,7-19418C,7-19419C,7-19420C |
| Parties | KLAMATH IRRIGATION, et al., and JOHN ANDERSON FARMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, v. Defendant, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, Defendant-Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Water Rights; Physical vs. Regulatory Takings; Endangered Species Act; Motions in Limine.
Nancie G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, DC for plaintiffs. With her was Roger G. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC. Of counsel was William M. Ganong, Special Counsel, Klamath Irrigation District, Klamath Falls, OR.
Kristine S. Tardiff, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Concord, NH, for defendant. With her was John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Stephen M. MacFarlane and Edward C. Thomas, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice.
Todd D. True, Earthjustice, Seattle, WA for defendant-intervenor.
Before the court are the parties' cross-motions in limine regarding the proper legal framework for analyzing plaintiffs' takings claims in the above-captioned cases. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases are individual landowners, irrigation districts and similar government agencies, and private corporations in Oregon and California who allege that the defendant, acting through the United States Bureau of Reclamation, effected a taking of their alleged water rights in 2001. In the motions presently before the court, defendant argues that plaintiffs' takings claims should be analyzed as regulatory takings, while plaintiffs argue that their claims should be analyzed as physical takings.
Plaintiffs are users of water in the Klamath River Basin. "Located in southern Oregon and northern California, the Klamath River Basin is the drainage basin of the Klamath River, the Lost River, and the Link River, as well as various other rivers." Klamath Irr. Dist. v. United States, 635 F.3d 505, 508 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Klamath Irrigation Project (the Klamath Project), an irrigation project straddling the southern Oregon and northern California borders, supplies water to hundreds of farms, comprising approximately 200,000 acres of agricultural land, including those in the Klamath River Basin. The Klamath Project is managed and operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Water is generally diverted and delivered by the Klamath Project pursuant to state law (to the extent it is not inconsistent with federal law) and pursuant to perpetual repayment contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigation districts. See Klamath Irr. Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504, 511 (2005), rev'd, 635 F.3d 505. The property rights claimed by the individual landowner plaintiffs in this litigation relate to water that is diverted from the Upper Klamath Lake, a large, shallow lake in which water is stored by means of a dam (the Link River Dam), and from locations downstream of the Upper Klamath Lake and the Link River Dam on the Klamath River in Oregon. See id. at 509. The water is diverted out of the Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River and then conveyed through canals and laterals to individual farms and ranches in both states for irrigation use, as well as for use on certain national wildlife refuge lands within the Klamath Project. The works which divert the water were constructed and are owned by the United States. The operation and maintenance of all the federally owned diversion works downstream of the headgates of the Upper Klamath Lake, as well as works that divert water directly from the Klamath River, however, have been transferred to two of the irrigation district plaintiffs by contract, subject to the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, the irrigation district plaintiffs operate and maintain works that distribute this diverted water to serve benefitted lands. The individual, landowner plaintiffs (or their lessees) apply the diverted water to irrigate crops.
Klamath Irr. Dist. v. United States, 635 F.3d at 508. "Pursuantto the ESA, the Bureau [of Reclamation] has an obligation not to engage in any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such a species." Id. at 509 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1)). "In a 1999 Ninth Circuit decision, the interests of [Klamath] Project water users were declared subservient to the ESA, the result being that, as necessary, the Bureau has a duty to control the operation of the Link River Dam in order to satisfy the requirements of the ESA." Id. at 508 (citing Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 1999), amended by 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000)). Klamath Project operations potentially affect three species of fish protected under the Endangered Species Act: the endangered Lost River sucker; the endangered shortnose sucker; and the threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon. The Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker reside in Upper Klamath Lake and nearby waters, while the SONCC coho salmon use the mainstream and tributaries of the Klamath River downstream from the Upper Klamath Lake and the Link River Dam.
Klamath Irr. Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. at 512. As the Bureau of Reclamation developed its operating plan for the 2001 water year, however, water supply forecasts indicated that it would be a "critically dry" year due to drought conditions. See Kandra v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1198 (D. Or. 2001). In response, the Bureau of Reclamation performed a biological assessment of the Klamath Project's operations on the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker, and a similar assessment regarding the SONCC coho salmon. See Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. at 513 (citing Kandra v. United States, 145 F.Supp.2d at 1198). "Both assessments concluded that operation of the Project was likely to affect adversely the three species in violation of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq." Id. On January 22, 2011, the Bureau of Reclamation forwarded its biological assessment regarding the SONCC coho salmon to the United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and requested the initiation of a formal consultation with the NMFS pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. On February 13, 2011, the Bureau of Reclamation similarly forwarded its biological assessment regarding the Lost River sucker and the shortnose sucker to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and requested the initiation of a formal consultation with the FWS.
On April 5, 2001, the FWS, acting in furtherance of its statutory duties under the Endangered Species Act, issued a final biological opinion concluding that the proposed 2001 operation plan for the Klamath Project threatened the continued existence of the shortnose and Lost River sucker fish. The next day, April 6, 2001, the NMFS issued a final biological opinion concluding that the proposed operation plan threatened the SONCC coho salmon. As required by the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(3)(A) (2012), the biological opinions of both agencies included "reasonable and prudent alternatives" to address the threat to the three fish species. FWS's reasonable and prudent alternative required, among other actions, that the Bureau of Reclamation "not divert water from UKL [Upper Klamath Lake] for irrigation purposes if surface elevations are anticipated to go below [certain minimum levels], regardless of inflow yeartype." The NMFS's reasonable and prudent alternative required that the Bureau of Reclamation operate the Klamath Project in such a way so as to provide certain levels of "minimum IGD [Iron Gate Dam] water releases" into the Klamath River between April and September 2001.1
On April 6, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation issued a revised operation plan that incorporated the reasonable and prudent alternatives proposed by the FWS and the NMFS. With regard to deliveries to Klamath Project water users, the 2001 operation plan stated that "[d]ue to the requirements of the biological opinions and the ESA and the current drought conditions, only limited deliveries of Project water will be made for irrigation." On the same day, the Department of the Interior issued a news release stating that based on the FWS and NMFS opinions "and the requirements of [the] Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Reclamation announced today that no water will be available from Upper Klamath Lake to supply the farmers of the Klamath Project." Ultimately, the delivery of irrigation water from Upper Klamath Lake to the plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases was totally terminated until July 2001, when the Bureau of Reclamation was able to release approximately 70,000 acre-feet of water, an amount that plaintiffs allege came too late in the growing season to allow them to grow crops. Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. at 513 & n.10.2
The procedural history of the above-captioned cases is long and...
To continue reading
Request your trial