Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irr. Dist.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 80-3505,81-3002,81-3068 and 81-3069,s. 80-3505 |
| Citation | 763 F.2d 1032 |
| Parties | KITTITAS RECLAMATION DISTRICT, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SUNNYSIDE VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Donald H. Bond, Charles C. Flower, Flower & Andreotti, Yakima, Wash., for defendants-appellants.
Anne Almy, Land & Natural Resources Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Thomas G. Nelson, Twin Falls, Idaho, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
Before KILKENNY, WRIGHT, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
The opinion filed on September 10, 1982, is withdrawn and replaced by this opinion. The 1982 opinion was withheld from publication during our consideration of the petitions for rehearing.
The petitions for rehearing by Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (Sunnyside), Union Gap Irrigation District (Union Gap), and Yakima Valley Canal Company (Yakima Valley), supported by amicus curiae briefs of the State of Washington, are denied. The petitions for rehearing by Sunnyside, Union Gap, Yakima Valley, and Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District filed after our February 6, 1985 opinion also are denied.
In the fall of 1980, the district court ordered water released from a Yakima water project reservoir to preserve redds (nests of salmon eggs) threatened by low post-irrigation season water flows. We must decide whether the district court had authority to order the water released.
This appeal involves the collision of two interests: the Yakima Nation's interest in preservation of their fishing rights, and the eastern Washington farmers' interest in preservation of water needed for crops in the dry spring and summer. Irrigation districts in eastern Washington protest the district court's interference with their interests.
The Yakima Nation's interest dates back to its 1855 treaty with the United States. Article III reserved to the Indians "[t]he exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams ... bordering [the] reservation ... also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory...." 12 Stat. 951, 953 (1855).
The farmers' interest stems from the irrigation and storage systems constructed by the Reclamation Service in 1909 to 1933, and a 1945 consent decree, which specified the amounts of water to be delivered to the appellant irrigation districts during the irrigation season. The district court retained jurisdiction over the consent decree's interpretation and administration. It entered the orders on appeal under this jurisdiction.
The Chinook salmon normally spawn in the fall when the water in a river is near its lowest levels. This practice ensures that in a natural river system, the spawning site will remain covered with water throughout the year. But artificially high irrigation releases in the early fall of 1980 caused the When the Yakima Nation discovered this, it requested the irrigation system's court-appointed watermaster to maintain the water flow. The watermaster, in turn, asked the district court for instructions.
salmon to misjudge. If officials closed the Cle Elum dam as usual, to begin winter storage, approximately 60 redds would have been exposed and destroyed.
The court held two hearings. At the first, in October 1980, it concluded that the 1945 consent decree did not consider the Yakima Nation's treaty fishing right. Thus, the decree did not limit or preclude measures necessary to preserve that right when operation of the irrigation system threatened to damage the salmon run. Because of the immediacy of the problem, the court ordered release of necessary water until the next hearing, held in November 1980.
After the November hearing, the court issued additional instructions to the watermaster regarding the 1980 to 1981 nonirrigation season. These authorized (1) continued release of water, as necessary, to preserve the redds; (2) use of alternative measures to preserve the redds, such as diversionary berms and transplantation; and (3) monitoring of the redds' condition. The court also ordered a study of methods for subsequent irrigation seasons (including regulation of reservoir releases during the spawning season) that would accommodate the needs of farmers and, at the same time, preserve the salmon run.
The irrigation districts argue that the court lacked jurisdiction because its order exceeded the scope of authority reserved in the consent decree. Alternatively, they argue that a pending state court adjudication of Yakima basin water rights deprived the court of jurisdiction.
Substantively, the irrigation districts argue that any water right associated with the Indians' fishing right was abrogated by Congress before the consent decree, or in its settlement. They claim also that the decree is res judicata of any water right.
The district court did not exceed the scope of its retained jurisdiction under the consent decree. 1 Paragraph 20 gave the court jurisdiction "over matters of interpretation of this judgment and matters relating to the administration thereof." Appellants argue that this clause limits the court's jurisdiction to disputes between the parties to the decree.
No such limitation appears. The decree specifically stated that it did not adjudicate the rights of persons not made parties, including the Yakima Nation. 2 The court properly assumed jurisdiction to interpret the decree in light of the Nation's treaty fishing right.
Nor was the district court required to dismiss the proceeding in favor of a state court action generally adjudicating water rights in the Yakima River basin, State of Washington v. Acquavella, No. 77-2-01484-5 (Yakima Co. Super.Ct., filed Oct. 12, 1977). Appellants' reliance on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (Akin), 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), is misplaced.
Akin does not hold that a pending state action adjudicating water rights automatically deprives the district court of jurisdiction over issues implicating water. Rather, the Akin Court found only that, based on consideration of several factors, 3 dismissal of the federal suit in favor of state proceedings was justified by wise judicial administration and efficiency.
Those factors are not present here. In Akin, the parties intended both the federal and state court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. U.S.
...includes the right to have those fish protected from manmade despoliation"); see also Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032, 1033, 1035 (9th Cir.1985) (approving district court order releasing water from a water project to preserve nests of salmon eg......
-
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. U.S., 01-35028.
...includes the right to have those fish protected from man-made despoliation"); see also Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032, 1033, 1035 (9th Cir.1985) (approving district court order releasing water from a water project to preserve nests of salmon e......
-
Baley v. United States
...away from Fort Belknap Indian Reservation based on the unquantified tribal reserved rights); Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irr. Dist., 763 F.2d 1032, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming district court's order requiring that water be released from a reservoir in order to pres......
-
U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755)
...protection for stream flows that provided salmon spawning habitat. Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 1985). The Ninth Circuit18 recognized a necessity for upstream habitats, even though the flows at issue were over fifty miles ......
-
Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
...Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 297 (1942)). (97) Id. (98) Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (9th Cir. (99) Id. (100) Id. (discussing Judge Quackenbush's unpublished opinion). (101) Id. This opinion was in fact the third that the ......
-
Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.
...1986); United States v. Anderson, 736 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1984); Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985); Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Trans-Canada Enters., Ltd., 713 F.2d 455, 458 (9th Cir. 1983); Joint Bd. of Control of the......
-
Application of the ESA to Indian Tribes and Their Lands
...951 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1983); Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Irrigation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1985). See also Cohen, supra note 8, at 575-604. States , 25 the Supreme Court held that the tribe had impliedly reserved the right t......
-
Leasing water rights for instream flow uses: a survey of water transfer policy, practices, and problems in the Pacific Northwest.
...courts have allocated water to protect treaty fishing rights. See Kittitas Reclamation Dist. v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist., 763 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032 (1985). Reserved rights supporting on- and off-reservation treaty fisheries of the Nez Perce Tr......