Background
The Klamath Project is a large water management initiative in Northern California and Southern Oregon that provides water for irrigation and wildlife refuges. Upper Klamath Lake provides habitat for endangered suckers, and downstream flows support threatened salmon. In response to endangered species listings and drought, the Bureau of Reclamation consulted with federal wildlife agencies to maintain minimum water levels and stream flows. The Klamath Irrigation District and Klamath Water Users Association challenged the application of the Endangered Species Act to the Bureau’s operations, arguing it violated their water rights and exceeded the court’s jurisdiction.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that Section seven of the Endangered Species Act applies to the Bureau’s operations because the Reclamation Act does not mandate specific non-discretionary actions that conflict with the ESA. The court reaffirmed that Klamath Water Users Protective Association versus Patterson remains controlling precedent. The court rejected the argument that the decision constituted a judicial taking, noting that determining ESA applicability is not an adjudication of water rights. The court also found that doctrines of prior exclusive jurisdiction and Colorado River abstention did not bar the federal district court from deciding the crossclaim.
The dissent
He would hold that no statutory provision or contract provided agency discretion sufficient to trigger the ESA.
Judge Nelson
What it means going forward
The ruling confirms that the Bureau of Reclamation must continue to operate the Klamath Project in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, prioritizing water releases for endangered species over irrigation demands when necessary.