throbber
Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`DANIEL CORDALIS (CSBA #321722)
`Cordalis Law, P.C.
`2910 Springer Drive
`McKinleyville, CA 95519
`Ph: (303) 717-4618
`dcordalislaw@gmail.com
`
`GENEVA E.B. THOMPSON (CSBA #315725)
`Yurok Tribe
`190 Klamath Blvd.
`P.O. BOX 1027
`Klamath, CA 95548
`Ph: (707) 482-1350 | Fax: (707) 482-1377
`gthompson@yuroktribe.nsn.us
`*Admittance to the Northern District of California Pending
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Yurok Tribe and Mr. Myers
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`YUROK TRIBE, on its own behalf and on behalf
`of its members, and
`
`FRANKIE MYERS, Yurok Tribal Council Vice
`Chairperson, in his official and individual
`capacities,
`
`
`
`
`U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-5891
`
`Related Cases: No. 3:19-cv-04405-WHO
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`RELIEF
`
`Administrative Procedure Act and
`Religious Freedom Restoration Act Case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`This case addresses a recent decision by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
`
`(“Bureau”) as a part of its ongoing operation of the Klamath Irrigation Project that substantially
`
`impacts the ability of the Yurok Tribe (“Tribe”) and its members to participate in the cultural,
`
`spiritual, and religious ceremonies they have practiced since time immemorial. This action seeks
`
`COMPLAINT - 1 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`to require the Bureau to adhere to its 2020 operations plan and immediately provide water
`
`releases necessary to conduct the Tribe’s Boat Dance, the final part of the Tribe’s world renewal
`
`ceremony and religious practice held every other year, scheduled for August 30, 2020.
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s decision, made only eleven days before the Tribe’s ceremony, was
`
`made without any consultation or coordination with the Yurok Tribe despite months of requests
`
`by the Tribe. The Boat Dance, and the ability of Mr. Myers, the Tribe and its Tribal members to
`
`freely exercise their religious practices and complete the world renewal ceremony, is dependent
`
`on the water releases.
`
`
`
`This case presents two claims challenging the Bureau’s August 19, 2020 decision
`
`to not provide 7,000 acre feet (“AF”) of water releases for the Boat Dance in accordance with the
`
`Bureau’s 2020 annual operations plan (“AOP”). The first claim alleges that the Bureau’s
`
`decision is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because
`
`the Bureau’s 2020 AOP included 7,000 AF of water earmarked specifically for the Tribe’s Boat
`
`Dance and the Bureau’s rationale for its last-minute decision to not provide the water is
`
`contradicted by the evidence that was before the agency. That evidence shows that there
`
`presently is sufficient available water—33,564 AF as of August 20—to provide the Boat Dance
`
`water releases without running afoul of other federal water commitments, including Upper
`
`Klamath Lake thresholds and agricultural deliveries. Because the decision contradicts the
`
`evidence, the Bureau acted arbitrarily in its decision to not provide the water.
`
`
`
`The second claim alleges a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
`
`(“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), because the Bureau’s decision is a governmental action that
`
`substantially burdens the ability of Mr. Myers and Yurok Tribal members to exercise their
`
`religious and spiritual practices. Without the supplemental water to support the Boat Dance as
`
`COMPLAINT - 2 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`provided for in the AOP, the world renewal ceremony cannot be completed because the river
`
`location would have unsafe and impassible conditions for a canoe, precluding the ability to hold
`
`the Boat Dance ceremony. The Bureau’s decision was not supported by a compelling interest nor
`
`is it the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government’s goals and violates RFRA.
`
`
`
`This action asks the Court to issue an order precluding the Bureau from deviating
`
`from the AOP and requiring the Bureau to immediately plan, coordinate, and to provide the
`
`water necessary for the Boat Dance to occur on August 30, 2020.
`
`JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`
`
`This action is brought under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and RFRA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362.
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the Yurok Tribe
`
`and Mr. Myers are located in the district and many of the events and consequences of the
`
`defendant’s violations of law occurred or will occur in this district.
`
`
`
`This case is properly assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland Division under Civil
`
`L.R. 3-2(c) because this case is related to Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation, 231 F. Supp. 3d
`
`450 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“Yurok I”), and the currently stayed Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of
`
`Reclamation, 3:19-cv-04405-WHO (N.D. Cal. filed July 31, 2019) (“Yurok II”). Both cases were
`
`assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland Division and heard by Judge William H. Orrick, III. The
`
`Yurok Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation are both parties in this case and the two related
`
`cases. The underlying contention of the Bureau’s management of the Klamath Irrigation Project
`
`and its impacts to the Klamath River and the Yurok Tribe, particularly in 2020, are the same
`
`between this case and the two related cases.
`
`COMPLAINT - 3 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`Tribal Member Plaintiff
`
`Frankie Myers is an enrolled member of the Yurok Tribe and currently serves as
`
`the Vice Chairperson of the Yurok Tribal Council. Mr. Myers is a religious practitioner and
`
`ceremonial leader who participates in the Tribe’s biennial world renewal ceremony and Boat
`
`Dance.
`
`B.
`
`Yurok Tribe
`
`
`
`The Yurok Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe whose reservation is
`
`located on the lower Klamath River in northern California, spanning from the river’s mouth at
`
`the Pacific Ocean upriver to the Yurok village of Weitchpec, near where the Boat Dance occurs.
`
`With more than 6,400 tribal members, the Yurok Tribe is the largest Indian tribe in California.
`
`By filing this action, the Tribe does not waive its sovereign immunity and does not consent to
`
`suit as to any claim, demand, offset, or cause of action of the United States, its agencies, officers,
`
`agents, or any other person or entity in this or any other court.
`
`
`
`Yurok people have always lived on their ancestral territory along the Pacific
`
`Coast and inland on the Klamath River. The Spirit People, Woge’, made the land for them and
`
`the Creator, Ko-won-no-ekc-on Ne-ka-nup-ceo, put them there. Yurok people believe they were
`
`placed on the Klamath River to care for it and they have a cultural covenant to protect the river.
`
`The Tribe’s creation story tells that the river was made to support the Yurok People and as long
`
`as they do not take more resources than they need from the river, it would always provide for
`
`their livelihood. Today, the Tribe’s Constitution imposes this duty on the Yurok government, to
`
`protect and “to restore, enhance and manage the tribal fishery, tribal water rights, tribal forest,
`
`and all other natural resources” of the Yurok Reservation. Yurok Const., Preamble.
`
` With an understanding of the river’s central role in Yurok culture and life, “a strip
`
`COMPLAINT - 4 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`of territory one mile in width on each side of the (Klamath) river” was set aside for the Yurok
`
`people by Executive Order in 1855 as the “Klamath River Reservation.” C.J. Kappler, 1 Indian
`
`Affairs Laws and Treaties 816-17 (1904); see also Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 483 (1973).
`
`That reservation was “ideally selected for the Yuroks,” and “[n]o place can be found so well
`
`adapted to these Indians, and to which they themselves are so well adapted.” Mattz, 412 U.S. at
`
`486, n.6. The federal government created the reservation to ensure the Yurok people could
`
`continue their fishing and river-centric way of life on their ancestral homeland—it was no
`
`accident that the Klamath River was the geographical heart of the 1855 reservation and continues
`
`to be so today. The present-day Yurok Reservation extends for one mile on each side of the
`
`Klamath River in northern California from the mouth at the Pacific Ocean approximately 45
`
`miles upriver to Weitchpec.
`
`
`
`The Yurok Reservation was established on the lower Klamath River so the Tribe
`
`could maintain its fishing and river-centric way of life, reserving to the Tribe fishing and water
`
`rights to support that lifestyle and conferring a legal duty on the federal government to protect
`
`those rights. See Baley v. United States, 942 F.3d 1312, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Klamath Water
`
`Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 1999) (in operating the
`
`Klamath Project, the Bureau and United States “as a trustee for the Tribes, has a responsibility to
`
`protect their rights and resources,” and “has a responsibility to divert the water and resources
`
`needed to fulfill the Tribes' rights.”); Parravano v. Masten, 70 F.3d 539, 541 (9th Cir. 1995). The
`
`Klamath River and its fishery are “not much less necessary to the existence of the [Yurok] than
`
`the atmosphere they breathe[.]” Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting
`
`United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905)). The Tribe has reserved water rights that
`
`include water stored in Upper Klamath Lake and managed by the Bureau to provide instream
`
`COMPLAINT - 5 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`flows in the Klamath mainstem. Baley, 942 F.3d at 1339 (Yurok has “an implied water right that
`
`includes the Klamath River and the flows therein as controlled by the Iron Gate Dam,” and has
`
`“reserved water rights [that] encompass Klamath Project water.”).
`
`
`
`Since the beginning of time, Yurok people have lived on the Lower Klamath
`
`River in northern California, fishing and basing tribal culture around the river. But since the
`
`building of the federal Klamath Irrigation Project in the early 1900s, the Tribe’s ability to
`
`exercise its fishing and water rights has been severely impacted. The Klamath fishery has been in
`
`steady, and recently rapid, decline and a once abundant salmon fishery is now an unreliable
`
`means of subsistence and economy, endangering a culture and people reliant on a healthy river.
`
`See Yurok I; Yurok II.
`
`
`
`The lower Klamath River is now managed not by natural hydrologic events, but
`
`by the Bureau, who schedules and releases water below the Klamath Project and the four
`
`mainstem Klamath River dams to, quite literally, keep water in stretches of the Klamath River.
`
`Accordingly, the Bureau’s operation of the Project through water releases from Iron Gate Dam
`
`(the most downriver dam the Bureau operates) is the most important factor with respect to water
`
`management in the lower Klamath River and in protecting the Tribe’s water rights.
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s operation of the Klamath Project has had significant negative
`
`impacts to the Yurok Tribe. The Yurok Tribe has been and will continue to be irreparably
`
`harmed by defendant’s disregard of their statutory duties and by the unlawful injuries imposed
`
`by Klamath Project operations.
`
`C.
`
`Federal Defendant
`
`
`
`Defendant United States Bureau of Reclamation is an agency of the United States
`
`Department of the Interior that constructs and operates federal water projects throughout the
`
`United States. The Bureau has primary management authority over the Klamath Project.
`
`COMPLAINT - 6 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`As a federal agency, the Bureau has a federal trust responsibility to manage and
`
`protect Yurok trust resources and to work with the Tribe on a government-to-government basis
`
`when, but not limited to, undertaking activities that have the potential to affect the rights of the
`
`Yurok Tribe and its members.
`
`I.
`
`YUROK TRIBE AND THE BOAT DANCE
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`The Boat Dance is a part of the traditional Yurok religious ceremony held to
`
`restore and renew the balance of the world. The ceremony, including the Boat Dance, is held in
`
`late summer in even-numbered years and the Boat Dance the second and final part of the world
`
`renewal ceremony. This religious ceremony has been practiced on the river since time
`
`immemorial.
`
`
`
`In the Boat Dance ceremony, Yurok religious practitioners dance in large hand-
`
`carved redwood canoes and travel on the Klamath River near Weitchpec, the most upstream
`
`community on the Yurok Reservation. To safely conduct the ceremony and its practitioners, it is
`
`necessary to have sufficient water in the river to provide predictable currents and a water depth
`
`that allows for the canoes to pass over a riffle.
`
` Without sufficient water to safely hold the Boat Dance, the word renewal
`
`ceremony cannot be completed.
`
`
`
`Because Klamath River flows are tightly restricted by the Bureau and its Klamath
`
`Project operations, river flows at the ceremony site in late August must be augmented with
`
`additional water releases to ensure safe canoe passage. Knowing this, the Bureau has customarily
`
`provided for the water necessary in its AOP, increasing the environmental water account
`
`(“EWA,” the water released into the Klamath River), to account for the additional necessary flow
`
`volume. Consistent with its historical practices, the Bureau made such an accommodation in its
`
`COMPLAINT - 7 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`2020 AOP, including in the total 407,000 AF volume, “7 [thousand acre-feet] for the Yurok
`
`Tribal Boat Dance Ceremony in August.”
`
`
`
`The inclusion of the EWA water for the religious ceremony in even-numbered
`
`years was analyzed in the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) review of the Bureau’s
`
`2019-2024 proposed action. In the Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) for the proposed
`
`action, the FONSI relied on the inclusion of Boat Dance flows as support for its conclusion that
`
`there will be no significant impact on tribal sacred sites or practices:
`
`The Proposed Action is not likely to limit access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian Sacred
`
`Sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect
`
`the physical integrity of such sacred sites (EO13007 and 512 OM 3). Flow increases to
`
`accommodate the Yurok Tribe’s Boat Dance Ceremony are incorporated into the
`
`Proposed Action Alternative. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not inhibit access
`
`to, or ceremonial use of, an Indian Sacred Site nor would the Proposed Action Alternative
`
`adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites.
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s Manual, NAI P10, “Indian Policy of the Bureau of Reclamation,”
`
`includes the process for which the Bureau will uphold its tribal trust responsibility and provides
`
`strong support for the Bureau’s longstanding practice of providing the Boat Dance flows. The
`
`policy directs that the Bureau “will carry out its programs and projects in compliance with the
`
`letter and the spirit of laws and policies relating to Indians,” and that “Reclamation supports the
`
`Department's trust responsibility policy and will discharge, without limitation, the Secretary's
`
`Indian trust responsibility with a high degree of skill, care, and loyalty.” With regard to tribal
`
`culture, the Manual states “Reclamation will manage Federal lands under its jurisdiction to
`
`accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious
`
`COMPLAINT - 8 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`practitioners, and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.” And
`
`finally, the Bureau “recognizes that certain cultural resources can have special importance to
`
`Indian tribes and will seek to work with tribes to avoid adversely affecting cultural resources
`
`identified by tribes as important, and to determine appropriate mitigation measures when such
`
`effects cannot be avoided.”
`
`
`
`The Manual makes clear that it is the Bureau’s obligation, as the tribes’ federal
`
`trustee, to support when possible tribal cultural resources and will work with tribes when the
`
`Bureau’s actions threaten the ability of the tribe to exercise its religious practices. Yet, none of
`
`these actions occurred leading up to the Bureau’s last-minute decision to not provide Boat Dance
`
`flows and the Bureau’s decision ignores the government’s bedrock trust duties to Indian tribes.
`
`II.
`
`KLAMATH PROJECT OPERATIONS AND THE 2020 WATER YEAR
`
`
`
`The Yurok Tribe has been party to ongoing challenges in this Court to the
`
`Bureau’s operation of the Klamath Project, including Yurok I, and the currently stayed Yurok II.
`
`In March 2020, the parties in Yurok II engaged in settlement negotiations that led the Bureau to
`
`adopt an interim operations plan to govern Klamath Project operations through September 2022.
`
`
`
`In early April 2020, the Bureau set the EWA allocation in the AOP at 407,000
`
`AF, which included 7,000 AF for the Boat Dance, as required by the 2019-2024 Klamath
`
`Operations Plan and the Klamath Project’s Proposed Action analyzed in the 2019 Biological
`
`Opinion and 2019 Environmental Assessment and FONSI. The AOP is the Bureau’s Klamath
`
`Project management plan which stakeholders rely on to understand the Bureau’s annual water
`
`obligations and operating plan.
`
`24.
`
`On May 11, following a dry April and citing concerns due to extremely
`
`conservative water forecasts, the Bureau began cutting off augmented river flows agreed upon in
`
`the interim operations plan. The Bureau also told the Tribe that it intended to violate the AOP
`
`COMPLAINT - 9 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`and the 2019 Plan’s requirement that 7,000 AF of water be provided for the Yurok Tribe’s
`
`ceremonial Boat Dance. The Tribe and commercial fishing plaintiffs’ responded by filing a
`
`motion asking the court to lift the stay in Yurok II and to issue a temporary restraining order
`
`requiring the Bureau to adhere to the interim operations plan water allocation and also provide
`
`the water for the Boat Dance. Yurok II, ECF 909.
`
`25.
`
`On May 29, Judge William H. Orrick, III denied the Tribe’s request, citing the
`
`Bureau’s need to reevaluate water conditions and change operations during a dry year to protect
`
`Upper Klamath Lake levels in May to support the endangered sucker fish. Because the interim
`
`operations plan had specific May lake level provisions for the fish, Judge Orrick concluded the
`
`Bureau’s management was appropriate given the competing needs and difficult water conditions.
`
`In response to the Tribe’s argument that the Bureau was using extremely conservative water
`
`forecasts, Judge Orrick’s order noted: “Should water conditions improve, the Bureau will remain
`
`under an obligation set forth in the Interim Plan to manage the water appropriately, including
`
`negotiations through FASTA with interested entities.” Order at 8, ECF 924.
`
`26.
`
`On June 4, as the Tribe predicted, the Bureau informed the Tribe and other parties
`
`that water conditions were much improved and not as dire as the agency’s forecasts projected in
`
`early May. Incredibly, the agency told the Tribe there was almost 73,000 AF of additional water
`
`available and it would coordinate with the Klamath Basin stakeholders the allocation of the
`
`additional water. The Tribe requested: (1) 16,000 AF to fulfill the volume in the interim
`
`operations plan to support the fishery, and (2) a commitment to provide the 7,000 AF of water
`
`for Boat Dance flows, which the Bureau had stopped accounting for. The Bureau did not honor
`
`the Tribe’s request and ultimately provided only 8,000 AF of water for river flows and refused to
`
`commit to provide the Boat Dance flows. The Bureau also reinstated the Klamath Irrigation
`
`COMPLAINT - 10 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`Project’s full 2020 allocation of 140,000 AF, which was increased to 147,000 AF during summer
`
`as described in the AOP.
`
`27.
`
`In June, July, and August, fearing a last-minute decision that would hamstring the
`
`ability to complete the world renewal ceremony, the Tribe continued to seek assurances that the
`
`Bureau would provide the Boat Dance flows. The Bureau responded each time that it could not
`
`commit the flows until closer to the event when water forecasts and Upper Klamath Lake levels
`
`were more certain.
`
`28.
`
`As the summer progressed, water conditions improved, providing that clarity. The
`
`July 30 Flow Accounting and Scheduling Technical Advisory (“FASTA”) group—comprised of
`
`federal and tribal scientists tasked with Klamath River flow-related technical support—reported
`
`that there was 15,712 AF of water available beyond the Upper Klamath Lake threshold. Then,
`
`the August 13 FASTA update showed nearly 24,000 AF above the threshold. Now, the August
`
`20 FASTA update shows 33,564 AF is available, well above the threshold, even with the 7,000
`
`AF allocated to the Boat Dance. The increased volume is due to inflows into Upper Klamath
`
`Lake exceeding the Bureau’s ultra-conservative forecasts, the same forecasting problem the
`
`Tribe asserted in May and which lead to the curtailment of Klamath River flows during a fish
`
`disease outbreak.
`
`29.
`
`On August 4, given the improved water forecast and need to plan and prepare for
`
`the Boat Dance, Yurok Chairman Joseph James sent the Bureau a letter requesting assurance that
`
`the Bureau would provide the Boat Dance flows. The Bureau responded on August 7 indicating
`
`that a final determination had not yet been reached and that the Bureau would inform the Tribe
`
`of the decision as soon as possible. The Tribe followed up with the Bureau on August 12 seeking
`
`an answer, to no avail.
`
`COMPLAINT - 11 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Finally, on August 19, the Bureau notified the Tribe by phone and a three-
`
`sentence email that it was not going to provide the Boat Dance flows because it was concerned
`
`with carryover storage, water for the 2021 water year, and meeting other requirements.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`1 - APA CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`THE BUREAU’S DECISION TO DEVIATE FROM THE AOP AND NOT PROVIDE 7,000
`AF FOR THE BOAT DANCE IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE THERE IS
`AVAILABLE WATER TO MEET ALL 2020 BUREAU OBLIGATIONS.
`
`
`
`The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, “sets forth the
`
`procedures by which federal agencies are accountable to the public and their actions subject to
`
`review by the courts.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 796 (1992). Further, the APA
`
`establishes a “basic presumption of judicial review [for] one ‘suffering legal wrong because of
`
`agency action.’” Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967) (quoting 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 702).
`
`
`
`The APA authorizes courts to “review, hold unlawful, and set aside final agency
`
`action, findings, and conclusions that are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
`
`otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A); see Native Ecosystems Council v.
`
`Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`An agency action is arbitrary and capricious “if the agency relied on factors which
`
`Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
`
`problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the
`
`agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of
`
`agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
`
`(1983).
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s decision to deviate from the AOP at the final hour and not provide
`
`COMPLAINT - 12 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`the 7,000 AF of water for the Boat Dance ceremony earmarked in the Bureau’s AOP is a final
`
`agency action subject to judicial review under the APA.
`
`
`
`Through the Bureau’s AOP, the biological assessment which the National Marine
`
`Fisheries Service based its 2019 biological opinion on Klamath Project Operations, and the
`
`environment assessment, the Bureau adopted a plan for managing Klamath River flows. In each
`
`of those plans, the Bureau committed to provide 7,000 AF for the Boat Dance.
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s cryptic rationale about the need to meet “other requirements” is
`
`arbitrary and capricious because it failed to provide any evidence or data to support that rationale
`
`and why it precludes providing the Boat Dance water. The data produced by the FASTA group,
`
`which includes federal scientists, shows that there is currently almost 34,000 AF of water
`
`available above the threshold necessary to protect endangered sucker fish in Upper Klamath
`
`Lake. Even with providing the 7,000 AF, the lake has a buffer of over 26,000 AF to protect the
`
`needs of the suckers and provide carryover storage for the 2021 water year.
`
`
`
`This decision is arbitrary and capricious because it ran counter to the evidence
`
`before the agency showing there is sufficient available water in the Upper Klamath Lake to
`
`provide the Boat Dance ceremony water without harming the endangered suckers in the Upper
`
`Klamath Lake or impacting agricultural deliveries. There are no other obligations the Bureau is
`
`faced with in the 2020 water year that require it to cut the Boat Dance flows nor did the Bureau
`
`identify any such obligations.
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s commitment to provide water for the Boat Dance recognizes the
`
`agency’s trust responsibility to the Tribe to protect its resources and accommodate the Tribe’s
`
`religious and cultural rights, a practice the Bureau’s Manual requires.
`
`
`
`The Bureau reversed its longstanding practice of providing the Boat Dance flows
`
`COMPLAINT - 13 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`without any tribal consultation or action to explain how its decision is consistent with the AOP or
`
`the agency’s trust duties to the Tribe.
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s decision to wait to provide the Tribe its decision while the Tribe
`
`repeatedly requested assurances about the ceremonial water releases was arbitrary and capricious
`
`and a violation of the APA, particularly in light of water conditions that for over a month
`
`unequivocally showed there would be sufficient water for the ceremony.
`
`2 - RFRA CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`THE BUREAU’S DECISION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS MR MYERS, THE TRIBE’S,
`AND YUROK TRIBAL MEMBERS’ FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION BECAUSE THE
`RELIGIOUS PRACTICE CANNOT OCCUR DUE TO THE DECISION.
`
`The RFRA provides that governmental activity may not substantially burden a
`
`
`
`person’s exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that its action (1) is in
`
`furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of
`
`furthering that compelling interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b).
`
`
`
`The Bureau’s decision places a direct and substantial burden on Mr. Myers and
`
`the Yurok Tribe and its members’ ability to exercise their religion because the Boat Dance
`
`cannot occur without the supplemental water flows. If the Boat Dance cannot take place, the
`
`Tribe’s world renewal ceremony cannot be completed, leaving unfinished a critical religious
`
`practice that occurs only every two years. The 7,000 AF of water in the AOP is necessary for the
`
`Boat Dance to occur and the Bureau’s decision to not provide that water not only substantially
`
`burden’s Mr. Myers and the Tribe from exercising its religious practices, it precludes a religious
`
`practice altogether.
`
`
`
`The Bureau has not demonstrated it has a compelling interest to base its decision
`
`to withhold the Boat Dance water, only that it must accommodate “other requirements.” Nor has
`
`COMPLAINT - 14 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`the Bureau demonstrated that not providing the water is the least restrictive means to further that
`
`vague, unsupported interest. The data shows that there is available water well beyond that
`
`necessary to meet the Boat Dance flows and meet other water obligations this water year.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`Declare that the August 19 decision to deviate from the AOP and not provide the
`
`7,000 AF for the Boat Dance is arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 706(2)(A),
`
`B.
`
`Declare that the Bureau’s decision not to provide water for the Boat Dance
`
`ceremony violates RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1,
`
`C.
`
`Require the Bureau to comply with the AOP and immediately coordinate the
`
`release of water to allow the Boat Dance ceremony to occur on August 30 at the planned time,
`
`D.
`
`Award plaintiff their reasonable fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements,
`
`including attorneys’ fees associated with this litigation under the Equal Access to Justice Act 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2412; and
`
`E.
`
`Grant plaintiff such further and additional relief as the Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`DATED this 21st day of August 2020.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Daniel Cordalis
`Daniel Cordalis (CSBA # 321722)
`Cordalis Law, P.C.
`2910 Springer Drive
`McKinleyville, CA 95519
`Ph: (303) 717-4618
`dcordalislaw@gmail.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 15 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05891-JSC Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`Geneva E.B. Thompson (CSBA # 315725)
`Yurok Tribe
`190 Klamath Blvd.
`P.O. BOX 1027
`Klamath, CA 95548
`Ph: (707) 482-1350 | Fax: (707) 482-1377
`gthompson@yuroktribe.nsn.us
`*Admittance to the Northern District of California
`Pending
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Yurok Tribe and Mr. Myers
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 16 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket