Klamath Water Users v. Patterson, 98-35708
| Decision Date | 28 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-35708,98-35708 |
| Citation | 203 F.3d 1175 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2000) KLAMATH WATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION; KLAMATH DRAINAGE DISTRICT; SAM HENZEL; HENZEL PROPERTIES, LTD., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellants, v. ROGER PATTERSON, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; KARL E. WIRKUS, Area Manager, Klamath Irrigation Project, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; ELUID MARTINEZ, Commissioner of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; PATRICIA BENEKE, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior; BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior; THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees, and PACIFICORP, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, and NORTHCOAST ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER; PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMENS ASSOCIATION; INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES; KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE; MAZAMAS; OREGON NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER; THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; WATERWATCH OF OREGON; YUROK TRIBE, Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-3033 MRH.
Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Warren J. Ferguson, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.
The opinion filed September 9, 1999, is amending by adding a new footnote 3 at the end of Part II.B.3, slip op. at 11169, 191 F.3d at 1123, as follows:
3. An adjudication of all of the rights to the use of the surface waters of the Klamath River Basin ("Basin"), within the State of Oregon, is now pending in state court. See United States v. Oregon, 44 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 1994). That is a comprehensive water rights adjudication contemplated by the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. S 666, and questions of relative amounts and priorities, at least within the State of Oregon, will be decided there. Our decision in this case and that of that district court relate only to questions involving the Bureau's operation and management of the Project, and not to the relative rights of others not before the court to the use of the waters of the Basin.
With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny appellants' petition for panel rehearing. Judge Tashima votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges B. Fletcher and Ferguson so recommend.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on en...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baley v. United States
...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)). Of relevance to this litigation, Klamath Project operations potentially affect three species of fish protected under the Endangered......
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.—E. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., Civil Action No. 13–5410.
...also Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.1999), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that there is a presumption that beneficiaries of government contracts are incidental beneficiaries).263 Id.264 See id.265 Fo......
-
Irrigation v. United States
...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......
-
Pacific Coast Fed. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
...override concerns protected by the ESA. In Klamath Water Users Protective Assoc. v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.), amended, by 203 F.3d 1175, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 44, 148 L.Ed.2d 14 (2000), the Ninth Circuit confirmed that "the United States retains overall authority ......
-
Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.
...a different basis for determining the amount of water to be diverted at Derby Dam. Id. (128) 191 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1999), amended by 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. (129) Id. at 1123. (130) Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 128 (1983); see also White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 7......
-
Chapter 24C KLAMATH KLAMATH PROJECT: FOSSIL OR PHOENIX?
...(Or. 1918). [12] See generally Klamath Water Users Ass'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 203 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 812 (2000) (affirming judgment of the district court that water users are not intended third party ......
-
Case summaries.
...FERC'sviolation of the FPA section 811 and remanded the issue to FERC for resolution. Klamath Water Users Protective Assoc. v. Patterson, 203 F. 3d 1175 (9th Cir. The Ninth Circuit denied Klamath Water Users Protective Association's (the Association) petition for panel rehearing and reheari......