The Water Report Nov 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Issue #21 The Water Report The Klamath Case Takings In Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, the plaintiffs are thirteen individually named agricultural landowners and fourteen water, drainage or irrigation districts in the Klamath River Basin area of Oregon that receive water (directly or indirectly) from irrigation works constructed or operated by the US Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The fourteen districts, in turn, Klamath Issues represent approximately 1,400 families that own farm and ranch land that is irrigated with water from the Klamath Project, including land that has been irrigated with water from the Klamath Project for a century. The Klamath Project area includes 240,000 acres of irrigable lands. At issue in Klamath is the water that was to be used to irrigate 176,000 privately owned acres of land in the western portion of the Klamath Project in 2001. Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, Reclamation refused to deliver to irrigators approximately 350,000 AF of water, which it retained in Upper Klamath Lake for the benefit of UPPER 11 two species of endangered fish. N KLANIATH RIVER Area The parties filed cross motions for BASIN �,� Bilargea summary judgment and, on August 31, 2005, Judge Allegra of the Court of Federal Claims, Klamath Project PACIFIC Area issued a decision holding that the plaintiffs did not have a constitutionally protected property interest OCEAN OR H Iron Gate Dain s in the water withheld by the government (see 67 amain e V Falls Fed. Cl. 504 (2005)). The judge reasoned that the State of Oregon had permanently transferred to the United States all unappropriated waters of the Klamath Basin under a 1905 Oregon statute. That opinion is the first construction of the 1905 statute and, in plaintiffs' view, conflicts with the Tulare Lake decision discussed above. Consequently, the LOWER plaintiffs are seeking interlocutory appeal to the KLANIATH RIVER AND TRINITY RIVER US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They BASINS retain a breach of contract claim that the court has not yet ruled upon, except to hold that the 1,400 tKlamath water users are third -party beneficiaries Transbasin Diversion to the central wally of the repayment contracts between Reclamation and the irrigation districts. [See TWR #19, Water Upper & Lower Klamath River Basins Briefs, for additional information on Judge Allegra's holding.] Urban & The Stockton East Case Two California water districts (Stockton East Water District and Central San Joaquin Water Irrigation Conservation District), and the County of San Joaquin, City of Stockton, and California Water Service Company, have filed suit against the United States seeking $500 million in damages and just compensation for Reclamation's failure to deliver water to them from New Melones reservoir since 1993. The plaintiffs in this suit together serve over 300,000 urban water users and 130,000 acres of irrigated farmland in California's San Joaquin Valley. Breach of Stockton East Water District (Stockton East) and Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District Contract (Central) assert a breach of contract claim for Reclamation's failure to make available to them approximately 155,000 AF per year from the New Melones unit of the Central Valley Project. The 1983 contracts between the districts and Reclamation obligated the districts to construct a $70 million water Government conveyance system that, in most years, has been bone dry. The government defends on the ground that Defense the subsequent congressional enactments, as well as restrictions created by the Endangered Species Act, prevent them from delivering the water. The parties are presently briefing cross motions for summary judgment, which are set for oral argument December 19, 2005, in Washington, DC. The Casitas Case Contract Claim Casitas Municipal Water District provides part or all of the municipal water supply for approximately 65,000 residents within the District, and the entire agricultural water supply for 5,668 acres Fish Diversion of farm and ranch land. Casitas operates the Ventura River Project under a 1958 contract with Reclamation, and Casitas holds the sole right to use the water of the Ventura River Project (subject only to prior existing rights). In the suit, Casitas asserts a claim for breach of contract by reason of Reclamation's order that Casitas, at its own expense, construct a $9.3 million fish diversion facility to 4 Copyright© 2005 Envirotech Publications; Reproduction without permission strictly prohibited.