Court Turns Down Irrigators Demand for Taxpayer Handout - Ruling recognizes public interests in rivers and streams

 

(Note: "Calling such an argument “rootless,” “unrealistic,” and a “fantasy,” the court ruled that the Klamath irrigators have no property rights to specific water deliveries under federal or state law" -- even though the irrigators had PAID IN ADVANCE for their water, which, after being used from 7-9 times during the irrigation season to GROW FOOD to FEED MANY PEOPLE, then proceeded downstream, producing FAR LESS EVAPORATION than if it had been left in the shallow and hot Upper Klamath Lake. Some folks don't want to hear facts -- and some also want to turn facts into Play-Dough, which makes fact become fiction.)

September 1, 2005

 

Contact Info:


Todd True, Earthjustice, 206-343-7340 ex 30

Glen Spain, PCFFA, 541-689-2000

 

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Court of Federal Claims announced a significant victory for coastal communities, salmon fishermen, and others who depend on a healthy Klamath River for their livelihoods. The court rejected the major claims in a lawsuit by Klamath Basin irrigators demanding taxpayer dollars, after they were denied access to water in 2001 that belongs to all the people of Oregon and California.

Earthjustice represented the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) in opposing extreme property rights advocates who argued that, under federal law, private property is taken when water is left in rivers to protect threatened salmon and other species.

Calling such an argument “rootless,” “unrealistic,” and a “fantasy,” the court ruled that the Klamath irrigators have no property rights to specific water deliveries under federal or state law.

Water contracts between Klamath farmers and the federal government oblige the government to deliver water to farmers when it is available. This requirement is subject to the government's other legal obligations, including protecting endangered and threatened species. The irrigators attempted to circumvent these established standards and the court told them they would have an uphill battle to win such claims.

During the summer of 2001, in a near-record drought year, government officials reduced diversions of the Klamath River to irrigators in order to sustain federally protected coho salmon. These irrigators claimed the lack of water caused them economic losses and subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking taxpayer compensation for a constitutional "taking." The irrigators claimed they were owed a billion dollars because of the curtailment of water during the summer of 2001.

PCFFA intervened to protect its members’ and their families’ interests in healthy fisheries that depend on adequate water flows in the Klamath River. The irrigators tried to block the fishermen from the case but failed. In February 2005 the federal claims court ruled that commercial salmon fishermen have the right to participate fully in the case.

This ruling marked the first time any group trying to protect fish and wildlife has been allowed to intervene as a full party in a Court of Federal Claims case.

“This shuts the door on water disputes from 2001. But those were only a symptom of the more fundamental problem of too many demands for too little water. People should look forward, not backward, and work to bring the water budget sheet back into balance through the whole basin to prevent these types of crises in the future,” said Glen Spain of PCFFA.

The Klamath irrigators’ claim was against the federal government, which opposed paying them.

Irrigators in California's Central Valley brought a similar constitutional "takings" claim that was accepted by a different Court of Federal Claims judge.

That ruling was widely perceived by conservationists and legal experts to be wrongly decided.

Instead of appealing, the federal government settled the claim and paid the irrigators $16 million.

The same court in its Klamath decision noted that this earlier decision “appears to be wrong on some counts, incomplete in others, and, distinguishable [from the Klamath case] at all events.” This rejection of the Central Valley decision, while not conclusive, is good news for salmon fishermen and others who depend on healthy streams and balanced water use.

“The Court of Federal Claims decision today rejects an extreme view of property right advanced by the irrigators. The decision is based on well-established legal precedent and should limit future claims like this,” said Todd True of Earthjustice. “This ruling is good news for fishermen, their families, and all our communities that depend on a fair and balanced allocation of our scarce water resources.”

The federal claims court deals with questions of monetary compensation from the federal government.

While the court today rejected the irrigators’ claims that they had property rights in Klamath Basin water, it allowed further briefing on certain limited contractual claims against the government, even though it observed that on the claims, “plaintiffs face an uphill battle.”

 

Read the decision here: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/9-05/KlamathTakingsOpinion.pdf (52 pages)

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=1042

 

Additional related, recommended reading:

 

*Conclusion

III. CONCLUSION

Concluding this tour d’horizon, the court is mindful that, despite the potential for contractual recovery here, this ruling may disappoint a number of individuals who have long invested effort and expense in developing their lands based upon the expectation that the waters of the Klamath Basin would continue to flow, uninterrupted, for irrigation. But, those expectations, no matter how understandable, do not give those landowners any more property rights as against the United States, and the application of the Endangered Species Act, than they actually obtained and possess. Like it or not, water rights, though undeniably precious, are subject to the same rules that govern all forms of property – they enjoy no elevated or more protected status. In the case sub judice, those rights, such as they exist, take the form of contract claims and will be resolved as such.

Based upon the foregoing, the court, GRANTS, IN PART, and DENIES, IN PART, the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment (including the motion filed on March 14, 2005). On or before October 4, 2005, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating how this case should proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Francis M. Allegra

Francis M. Allegra

Judge

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/9-05/KlamathTakingsOpinion.pdf

 

This information and much more that you need to know about the ESA, the Klamath Basin, and private property rights can be found at The Klamath Bucket Brigade's website - http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/ -- please visit today.