Background
The Klamath Project is a large water management initiative in Northern California and Southern Oregon authorized in nineteen hundred five. It provides water for irrigation and wildlife refuges, including habitat for endangered suckers and threatened salmon. The Bureau of Reclamation consulted with federal wildlife agencies to ensure operations did not jeopardize these species, resulting in requirements to maintain water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and provide minimum stream flows. Irrigation districts and water users challenged the application of the Act, arguing it conflicted with their contractual rights and that the court lacked jurisdiction.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that Section seven subsection a two of the Endangered Species Act applies to the Bureau of Reclamation’s operations. The court reaffirmed that Klamath Water Users Protective Association versus Patterson remains controlling precedent. The court distinguished Supreme Court precedent in National Association of Home Builders versus Defenders of Wildlife, noting that the Reclamation Act does not mandate specific non-discretionary actions that conflict with the ESA. The court further held that determining ESA applicability is not an adjudication of water rights, so it does not constitute a judicial taking. Finally, the court found that doctrines of prior exclusive jurisdiction and Colorado River abstention did not apply to the federal crossclaim.
The dissent
What it means going forward
The decision confirms that the Bureau of Reclamation must operate the Klamath Project in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, prioritizing water releases for endangered species over irrigation demands when necessary.