Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation
| Decision Date | 08 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-36009,20-36020 |
| Parties | Klamath Irrigation District, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Bureau of Reclamation; Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, in her official capacity; Camille Calimlim Touton, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, in her official capacity; Ernest Conant, Director of the Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation, in his official capacity; Jared Bottcher, in his official capacity as Acting Area Manager for the Klamath Area Reclamation Office, Defendants-Appellees, and Shasta View Irrigation District; Tulelake Irrigation District; Klamath Water Users Association; Klamath Drainage District; Rob Unruh; Van Brimmer Ditch Company; Ben Duval, Plaintiffs, Hoopa Valley Tribe; The Klamath Tribes, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees. Shasta View Irrigation District; Tulelake Irrigation District; Klamath Water Users Association; Klamath Drainage District; Rob Unruh; Van Brimmer Ditch Company; Ben Duval, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Klamath Irrigation District, Plaintiff, v. United States Bureau Of Reclamation; Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, in her official capacity; Camille Calimlim Touton, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, in her official capacity; Ernest Conant, Director of the Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation, in his official capacity; Jared Bottcher, in his official capacity as Acting Area Manager for the Klamath Area Reclamation Office, Defendants-Appellees, Hoopa Valley Tribe; The Klamath Tribes, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2021 San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding D.C. Nos. 1:19-cv-00451-CL 1:19-cv-00531-CL Christopher A. Lisieski (argued) and John P. Kinsey, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Fresno, California; Nathan R. Rietmann Rietmann Law PC, Salem, Oregon; for Plaintiff-Appellant Klamath Irrigation District.
Richard S. Deitchman (argued), and Paul S. Simmons, Somach Simmons & Dunn PC, Sacramento, California; Nathan J Ratliff, Parks & Ratliff PC, Klamath Falls, Oregon; Reagan L.B. Desmond, Clyde Snow & Sessions PC, Bend, Oregon; for Plaintiffs-Appellants Shasta View Irrigation District, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Water Users Association, Klamath Drainage District, Rob Unruh, Van Brimmer Ditch Company, and Ben Duval.
Thane D. Somerville (argued) and Thomas P. Schlosser, Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & Somerville, Seattle, Washington, for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee Hoopla Valley Tribe.
Rachel Heron (argued) and John L. Smeltzer, Attorneys; Jean E. Williams, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.
Jeremiah D. Weiner (argued), Rosette LLP, Sacramento, California, for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee Klamath Tribes.
Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Daniel A. Bress, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY[*]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 / Environmental Law
The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal, due to a lack of a required party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19, of an action concerning the distribution of waters in the Klamath Water Basin by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Various parties appealed the dismissal of their action challenging Reclamation's current operating procedures, which were adopted in consultation with other relevant federal agencies to maintain specific lake levels and instream flows to comply with the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and to safeguard the federal reserved water and fishing rights of the Hoopa Valley and Klamath Tribes (the "Tribes"). The Tribes intervened as of right, but then moved to dismiss the action on the ground that they were required parties who could not be joined due to their tribal sovereign immunity.
The panel held that the district court properly recognized that a declaration that Reclamation's operating procedures were unlawful would imperil the Tribes' reserved water and fishing rights. The panel affirmed the district court's conclusion that the Tribes were required parties who could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, and that in equity and good conscience, the action should be dismissed.
Specifically, the panel first examined whether the absent party must be joined under Rule 19(a). The Tribes have long-recognized federal reserved fishing rights, and these are at a minimum co-extensive with Reclamation's obligations to provide water for instream purposes under the ESA. If the plaintiffs are successful in their suit, the Tribes' water rights could be impaired, and therefore, the Tribes are required parties under Rule 19(a)(1(B)(i). The panel disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the Tribes were not required parties to this suit because the Tribes' interests were adequately represented by Reclamation. Because Reclamation is not an adequate representative of the Tribes, the Tribes are required parties under Rule 19.
The panel next disagreed with the plaintiffs' argument that even if the Tribes were required parties under Rule 19, the suit should proceed because the McCarran Amendment waives the Tribes' sovereign immunity. The McCarran Amendment waives the United States' sovereign immunity in certain suits. 43 U.S.C. § 666(a). The panel held that even if the McCarran Amendment's waiver of sovereign immunity extends to tribes as parties, the Amendment does not waive sovereign immunity in every case that implicates water rights. The panel concluded that this lawsuit was not an administration of previously determined rights but was instead an Administrative Procedures Act challenge to federal agency action.
Finally, the panel examined whether in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. The panel held that there was no way to shape relief to avoid the prejudice here because the plaintiffs' claims and the Tribes' claims are mutually exclusive. The panel concluded that the case must be dismissed in equity and good conscience.
Judge Bumatay concurred in the majority opinion except for Section V. He agreed with the majority opinion that Tribes were necessary parties that were entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, and plaintiffs' actions must be dismissed under Rule 19(b). He wrote separately because, although he ultimately agrees that this case is not a McCarran Amendment case, the analysis requires more attention. He disagreed with the majority's suggestion that Administrative Procedures Act challenges or cases involving ESA obligations can never be McCarran Amendment cases.
This appeal concerns the distribution of waters in the Klamath Water Basin by the Bureau of Reclamation, which owns and operates the Klamath Project, a federal irrigation project. Shasta View Irrigation District, Klamath Irrigation District, and other irrigators, farmers, and water users appeal the dismissal of their action challenging Reclamation's current operating procedures, which were adopted in consultation with other relevant federal agencies to maintain specific lake levels and instream flows to comply with the Endangered Species Act and to safeguard the federal reserved water and fishing rights of the Hoopa Valley and Klamath Tribes. The Districts contend that compliance with those procedures violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Reclamation Act because distributing water to fulfill the Tribal reserved waters deprives the Districts of waters they claim were lawfully appropriated to the Districts in a state adjudication proceeding. The Hoopa Valley and Klamath Tribes intervened as of right, but then moved to dismiss this action on the ground that they are required parties who cannot be joined due to their tribal sovereign immunity. Because the district court properly recognized that a declaration that Reclamation's operating procedures are unlawful would imperil the Tribes' reserved water and fishing rights, we affirm its conclusion that the Tribes were required parties who could not be joined due to their sovereign immunity, and, that in equity and good conscience, the action should be dismissed.
The Klamath Water Basin (the Klamath Basin) stretches from south-central Oregon to northern California, occupying approximately 12,000 square miles. The Klamath Basin consists of a complex network of interconnected rivers, canals, lakes, marshes, dams, diversions, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.
Upper Klamath Lake (UKL), a major lake within the Klamath Basin, is shallow and averages only about six feet of usable water storage when full. Drought conditions in past years have led to "critically dry" conditions in the Klamath Basin, including in UKL. See Baley v. United States, 942 F.3d 1312, 1323-24 (Fed Cir. 2019). This problem has only grown more severe with time. Recently, the Klamath Basin has experienced "multiple extremely dry years that unfortunately appear to be the new normal."
The waters of the Klamath Basin serve as a critical habitat for several species of fish that are listed as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C § 1531-1544, including the Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. UKL, which comprises 64,000 acres, serves as the largest remaining contiguous habitat for endangered suckers in the Upper Klamath Basin. Due to "changing water elevation in [UKL] and recurring water quality problems," U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Off. of the Solic., Opinion Letter on Certain Legal Rights and Obligations Related to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Project for Use in Preparation of the Klamath Project Operations Plan (KPOP) (July...
To continue reading
Request your trial