throbber

`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`LONNY E. BALEY, ET AL., JOHN ANDERSON
`FARMS, INC., ET AL.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION
`OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS,
`Defendants-Appellees
`______________________
`
`2018-1323, 2018-1325
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Court of Federal
`Claims in Nos. 1:01-cv-00591-MBH, 1:07-cv-00194-MBH,
`1:07-cv-19401-MBH, 1:07-cv-19402-MBH, 1:07-cv-19403-
`MBH, 1:07-cv-19404-MBH, 1:07-cv-19405-MBH, 1:07-cv-
`19406-MBH, 1:07-cv-19407-MBH, 1:07-cv-19408-MBH,
`1:07-cv-19409-MBH, 1:07-cv-19410-MBH, 1:07-cv-19411-
`MBH, 1:07-cv-19412-MBH, 1:07-cv-19413-MBH, 1:07-cv-
`19414-MBH, 1:07-cv-19415-MBH, 1:07-cv-19416-MBH,
`1:07-cv-19417-MBH, 1:07-cv-19418-MBH, 1:07-cv-19419-
`MBH, 1:07-cv-19420-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
`Horn.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: November 14, 2019
`______________________
`
`ROGER J. MARZULLA, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington,
`DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants Lonny E. Baley, Mark
`
`

`

`2
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`R. Trotman, Baley Trotman Farms, James L. Moore,
`Cheryl L. Moore, Daniel G. Chin, Deloris D. Chin, Wong
`Potatoes, Inc., Michael J. Byrne, Byrne Brothers, John An-
`derson Farms, Inc., Buckingham Family Trust, Eileen
`Buckingham, Keith Buckingham, Shelly Buckingham,
`Constance Frank, John Frank, Hill Land and Cattle Co.,
`Inc., Jeff Hunter, Sandra Hunter, McVay Farms, Inc., Bar-
`bara McVay, Matthew K. McVay, Michael McVay, Ronald
`McVay, Suzan McVay, Tatiana V. McVay, Henry O'Keeffe,
`Patricia O'Keeffe, Shasta View Produce, Inc., Edwin
`Stastny, Jr., All Plaintiffs. Also represented by NANCIE
`GAIL MARZULLA. Plaintiffs-appellants John Anderson
`Farms, Inc., Buckingham Family Trust, Eileen Bucking-
`ham, Keith Buckingham, Shelly Buckingham, Constance
`Frank, John Frank, Hill Land and Cattle Co., Inc., Jeff
`Hunter, Sandra Hunter, McVay Farms, Inc., Barbara
`McVay, Matthew K. McVay, Michael McVay, Ronald
`McVay, Suzan McVay, Tatiana V. McVay, Henry O'Keeffe,
`Patricia O'Keeffe, Shasta View Produce, Inc., Edwin
`Stastny, Jr. also represented by ALAN IRVING SALTMAN,
`Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP, Washington, DC.
`
` JOHN LUTHER SMELTZER, Environment and Natural
`Resources Division, United States Department of Justice,
`Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United
`States. Also represented by ELIZABETH ANN PETERSON,
`ERIC GRANT, JEFFREY H. WOOD.
`
` TODD D. TRUE, Earthjustice, Seattle, WA, argued for
`defendant-appellee Pacific Coast Federation of Fisher-
`men's Associations. Also represented by STEPHANIE
`KATHLEEN TSOSIE.
`
` CHARLES T. DUMARS, Law & Resource Planning Asso-
`ciates, PC, Albuquerque, NM, argued for amicus curiae The
`Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. Also represented
`by TANYA L. SCOTT; LORNA M. WIGGINS, Wiggins, Williams
`& Wiggins, PC, Albuquerque, NM.
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`3
`
`
` CRAIG A. PARTON, Price, Postel & Parma LLP, Santa
`Barbara, CA, for amici curiae City of Fresno, Arvin-Edison
`Water Storage District, Chowchilla Water District, Delano-
`Earlimart Irrigation District, Exeter Irrigation District,
`Ivanhoe Irrigation District, Lindmore Irrigation District,
`Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District, Lower Tule River
`Irrigation District, Orange Cove Irrigation District, Porter-
`ville Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District,
`Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District, Southern San Joaquin
`Municipal Utility District, Stone Corral Irrigation District,
`Terra Bella Irrigation District, Tulare Irrigation District,
`Kern Tulare Water District, Kaweah Delta Water Conser-
`vation District, Tea Pot Dome Water District, Fresno Irri-
`gation District, Friant Water Authority.
`
` DANIEL LUCAS, Office of the Attorney General, Califor-
`nia Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus cu-
`riae California State Water Resources Control Board. Also
`represented by XAVIER BECERRA, ROBERT W. BYRNE, ERIC
`M. KATZ, MELINDA PILLING, San Francisco, CA; JOSHUA A.
`KLEIN, Oakland, CA.
`
` JAMES HUFFMAN, Portland, OR, for amici curiae Family
`Farm Alliance, National Water Resources Association.
`
` DAVID E. FILIPPI, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR, for
`amicus curiae Oregon Water Resources Congress. Also
`represented by KIRK BENNY MAAG; STEVEN L. SHROPSHIRE,
`Jordan Ramis PC, Bend, OR.
`
` DOUGLAS W. MACDOUGAL, Marten Law PLLC, Port-
`land, OR, for amici curiae Oregon Farm Bureau Federa-
`tion, California Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm
`Bureau Federation, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bu-
`reau, Colorado Farm Bureau, Nevada Farm Bureau, Utah
`Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federa-
`tion. Also represented by SARAH ELIZABETH PETERSON,
`
`

`

`4
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, San Francisco, CA.
`
` DAVID R.E. ALADJEM, Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento,
`CA, for amicus curiae Association of California Water
`Agencies. Also represented by SAMUEL BIVINS, AVALON J.
`FITZGERALD, MEREDITH E. NIKKEL.
`
` DENISE FJORDBECK, Oregon Department of Justice, Sa-
`lem, OR, for amicus curiae State of Oregon. Also repre-
`sented by BENJAMIN N. GUTMAN, ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM.
`
` ROBERT T. ANDERSON, University of Washington School
`of Law, for amici curiae Robert T. Anderson, Reed D. Ben-
`son, Michael C. Blumm, Barbara Cosens, Sarah Krakoff,
`John D. Leshy, Monte Mills, Joseph William Singer, A. Dan
`Tarlock, Charles F. Wilkinson, Jeanette Wolfley. Amici cu-
`riae Michael C. Blumm, John D. Leshy, also represented
`by DAVID R. OWEN, Hastings College of Law, University of
`California, San Francisco, CA,
`
` DAVID R. OWEN, Hastings College of Law, University of
`California, San Francisco, CA, for amici curiae Robert
`Abrams, Craig Anthony Arnold, Karrigan Bork, Lee P.
`Breckenridge, Michelle Bryan, Robin K. Craig, Daniel A.
`Farber, Richard M. Frank, Eric Freyfogle, Robert L. Glicks-
`man, Sean B. Hecht, Oliver A. Houck, Blake Hudson,
`Christine A. Klein, Rhett Larson, Timothy M. Mulvaney,
`David R. Owen, Patrick Parenteau, Justin Pidot, Antonio
`Rossmann, J.B. Ruhl, Erin Ryan, Mark Squillace, David
`Takacs, Gerald Torres, Sandra Zellmer, Michael Pappas.
`
` SUSAN Y. NOE, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder,
`CO, for amicus curiae Klamath Tribes.
`
` THOMAS PAUL SCHLOSSER, Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak
`& Somerville, Seattle, WA, for amicus curiae Hoopa Valley
`Tribe. Also represented by THANE D. SOMERVILLE.
`
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`5
`
` JOHN ECHEVERRIA, Vermont Law School, South Royal-
`ton, VT, for amicus curiae Natural Resources Defense
`Council.
`
` AMY CHRISTINE CORDALIS, Yurok Tribe, Klamath, CA,
`for amicus curiae Yurok Tribe.
` ______________________
`
`Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
`SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
`INTRODUCTION AND DECISION
`This case arises out of the Klamath River Basin recla-
`mation project (“the Klamath Project” or “the Project”).
`The Project straddles the southern Oregon and northern
`California borders. Key features of the Project are Upper
`Klamath Lake in Oregon, where water is stored for the Pro-
`ject, and the Klamath River. The Klamath River rises at
`the south end of Upper Klamath Lake and flows from Ore-
`gon into California. The river eventually enters the Pacific
`Ocean near Klamath, California. The Project supplies wa-
`ter to hundreds of farms, comprising approximately
`200,000 acres of agricultural land. The Project is managed
`and operated by the United States Department of the Inte-
`rior’s Bureau of Reclamation (“the Bureau of Reclamation”
`or “the Bureau”). The Bureau of Reclamation also manages
`the Klamath Project to protect the tribal trust resources of
`several Native American Tribes.
`In 2001, the Bureau temporarily halted water deliver-
`ies to farmers and irrigation districts served by the Project.
`It took this action in order to meet the requirements of the
`Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (2000)
`(“the ESA”), as outlined in Biological Opinions from the
`United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“the FWS”) and
`the United States National Marine Fisheries Service (“the
`NMFS”). It also took this action in order to meet its tribal
`trust obligations.
`
`

`

`6
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`In October of 2001, fourteen irrigation organizations
`and thirteen individual farmers filed suit in the United
`States Court of Federal Claims in Klamath Irrigation Dis-
`trict v. United States, No. 1:01-cv-00591. In their second
`amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2005, the plain-
`tiffs alleged that the Bureau of Reclamation’s action in
`temporarily halting their water deliveries in 2001 consti-
`tuted a taking of their water rights without just compensa-
`tion, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United
`States Constitution. They also alleged that the Bureau’s
`action impaired their water rights under the Klamath
`River Basin Compact (“the Klamath Compact” or “the Com-
`pact”).1 The plaintiffs further alleged that the Bureau’s ac-
`tion breached certain water delivery contracts they had
`
`1 The Klamath Compact is a congressionally-ap-
`proved interstate compact between California and Oregon.
`See 71 Stat. 497–508 (1957). The Compact’s purposes are
`to “facilitate and promote the orderly, integrated, and com-
`prehensive development, use, conservation, and control [of
`the water resources of the Klamath River Basin] for vari-
`ous purposes” and to “further intergovernmental coopera-
`tion and comity with respect to these resources and
`programs for their use and development and to remove
`causes of present and future controversies.” Id. at 497.
`Section XIII of the Compact states that ‘‘[t]he United
`States shall not, without payment of just compensation,
`impair any rights to the use of water for [domestic or irri-
`gation purposes] within the Upper Klamath River Basin.”
`Id. at 507. However, this obligation is limited to rights ac-
`quired after the effective date of the Compact. Id. With
`respect to the rights of Native American tribes, Article X of
`the Compact states: “Nothing in this compact shall be
`deemed . . . [t]o deprive any individual Indian, tribe, band
`or community of Indians of any rights, privileges, or im-
`munities afforded under Federal treaty, agreement or stat-
`ute.” Id. at 505.
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`7
`
`with the Bureau. The Court of Federal Claims exercised
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).2
`On August 31, 2005, the Court of Federal Claims
`granted the government summary judgment on the plain-
`tiffs’ taking and Klamath Compact claims. See generally
`Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 504
`(2005). Thereafter, on March 16, 2007, the court also
`granted the government summary judgment on the plain-
`tiffs’ breach of contract claims. See generally Klamath Ir-
`rigation Dist. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 677 (2007).3
`Based upon these two summary judgment decisions, the
`court entered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ taking
`claims, their claims arising under the Compact, and their
`breach of contract claims. The plaintiffs appealed to this
`court.
`On July 16, 2008, we issued an order in which we cer-
`tified three questions to the Oregon Supreme Court. The
`questions related to the plaintiffs’ water rights under Ore-
`gon law. See Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 532
`F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Certification Order”). We is-
`sued the Certification Order pursuant to a procedure
`
`2 On February 28, 2005, the Court of Federal Claims
`granted the motion of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fish-
`ermen’s Associations (“the Federation”) to intervene as a
`defendant. Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 64
`Fed. Cl. 328, 331 (2005). The Federation represents ap-
`proximately 3,000 small commercial fishing operators who
`derive income from Pacific salmon that spawn in the Kla-
`math River Basin. Id.
`3 The Federation joined the government’s motion for
`summary judgment on the breach of contract claims. No-
`tice of Intervenor-Def. Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s
`Ass’ns’ Joinder in Federal Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. on Con-
`tract Claims, No. 1:01-cv-00591 (Ct. Fed. Claims Feb. 17,
`2006), ECF No. 263.
`
`

`

`8
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`whereby unsettled questions of state law may be certified
`to the Oregon Supreme Court. Id. at 1377; see Or. Rev.
`Stat. §§ 28.200–28.255 (2007). Pending action by the Ore-
`gon Supreme Court, we withheld decision on all of the
`plaintiffs’ claims. The Oregon Supreme Court accepted the
`case for certification, Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United
`States, 202 P.3d 159, 165 (Or. 2009), and on March 11,
`2010, the court rendered its decision answering our certi-
`fied questions. See Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United
`States, 227 P.3d 1145 (Or. 2010) (en banc) (“Certification
`Decision”). Following receipt of the Certification Decision,
`we vacated the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims
`and remanded the case to the court for further proceedings.
`See Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 635 F.3d 505,
`522 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Remand Decision”).
`Following our decision and remand, the Court of Fed-
`eral Claims entered several orders relevant to the Klamath
`Irrigation District case. It also entered several orders rel-
`evant to a related case filed by individual water user plain-
`tiffs, John Anderson Farms, et al. v. United States, No.
`1:07-cv-00194. First, in an order dated November 22, 2013,
`the court dismissed the breach of contract claims of three
`of the Klamath Irrigation District plaintiffs for lack of ju-
`risdiction. Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 113
`Fed. Cl. 688, 718 (2013). Thereafter, on June 3, 2014, the
`court granted the remaining Klamath Irrigation District
`plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss all their pending
`breach of contract claims. No. 1:01-cv-00591, ECF No. 343.
`Similarly, on March 13, 2014, the court granted a motion
`by the plaintiffs in John Anderson Farms to voluntarily
`dismiss their breach of contract claims. No. 1:07-cv-00194,
`ECF No. 65. Next, on January 12, 2016, the court issued
`an order consolidating the Klamath Irrigation District and
`John Anderson Farms cases. Subsequently, the parties
`filed cross-motions in limine on the question of whether the
`plaintiffs’ taking claims should be analyzed as potential
`physical or regulatory takings. The plaintiffs urged a
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`9
`
`physical takings approach. On December 21, 2016, the
`court issued an opinion ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
`Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 722
`(2016). In its opinion, the court held that “the govern-
`ment’s actions in the present cases ‘should be analyzed un-
`der the physical takings rubric.’” Id. at 737 (quoting
`Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276,
`1296 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The court’s rulings left for trial the
`plaintiffs’ claims that the Bureau of Reclamation’s action
`in 2001 constituted a taking and/or a violation of the Kla-
`math Compact.
`Finally, at a pretrial conference on January 10, 2017,
`the court granted a motion for class certification. The cer-
`tified class included, as opt-in plaintiffs, all persons who
`owned or leased land within, or who received water from,
`the fourteen plaintiff irrigation organizations and who
`claimed an appurtenant right to Project water4 and alleged
`a Fifth Amendment taking and an impairment of their
`rights under the Compact.
`The Court of Federal Claims held a ten-day trial com-
`mencing on January 30, 2017. Following the trial and post-
`trial briefing, all the irrigation organization plaintiffs
`moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims. The court
`granted the motion, which left as plaintiffs the surviving
`individual farmers and the class action opt-in plaintiffs.
`This resulted in the recaptioning of the consolidated case
`to Lonny Baley, et al. v. United States. Thereafter, on Sep-
`tember 29, 2017, the court issued its final decision in the
`case. Baley v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 619 (2017)
`
`4
`In the context of real property, something is “ap-
`purtenant” to land “when it is by right used with the land
`for its benefit.” Appurtenant, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th
`ed. 1990); see also Appurtenant, Black’s Law Dictionary
`(11th ed. 2019) (defining appurtenant as “[a]nnexed to a
`more important thing”).
`
`

`

`10
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`(“Baley”). In its decision, before addressing the plaintiffs’
`taking and Compact claims, the court made several rul-
`ings. Three of those rulings disposed of the claims of vari-
`ous plaintiffs. First, the court dismissed the claims of any
`plaintiffs deriving water rights from the Van Brimmer
`Ditch Company. Id. at 645–52.5 Second, the court barred
`the claims of certain of the plaintiffs who receive water un-
`der what are called “Warren Act Contracts.” Id. at 656–
`
`5 The Van Brimmer Ditch Company is not an irriga-
`tion district, but an Oregon business corporation that de-
`livers irrigation water to landowners. Baley, 134 Fed. Cl.
`at 632. The company traces its history to the 1880s, when
`its founders began drawing water from White Lake. Id.
`White Lake was associated with Lower Klamath Lake,
`which is along the border between Oregon and California.
`See id. The subsequent creation of the Klamath Project re-
`sulted in the draining of White Lake and Lower Klamath
`Lake (which is now a National Wildlife Refuge). Id.; see
`also U.S. DEP’T OF THE INTERIOR, Ground-Water Hydrology
`of the Upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California at 1–
`2, 6 (2010), https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5050/. On No-
`vember 6, 1909, the Van Brimmer Ditch Company con-
`tracted with the United States to receive water from Upper
`Klamath Lake. Baley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 632. In its contract,
`the Van Brimmer Ditch Company agreed to “waive[] and
`renounce[] . . . any and all of its riparian rights, in relation
`to the waters and shores of Lower Klamath Lake.” Id. In
`exchange, the United States agreed to “deliver to the Com-
`pany during each and every irrigation season . . . a quan-
`tity of water, not to exceed fifty second feet.” Id. Named
`plaintiffs James and Cheryl Moore are landowner-share-
`holders in the Van Brimmer Ditch Company. In 2001, they
`owned 135 shares of stock in the company, each of which
`corresponded to one acre of irrigable land, with an appur-
`tenant right to receive irrigation water from the company.
`Id.
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`11
`
`59.6 And third, the court ruled that plaintiffs who receive
`their water through leases for lands in the National Wild-
`life Refuges that are located within the Klamath Project
`were barred from recovering damages from the govern-
`ment based upon the denial of water because of certain pro-
`visions in their leases. Id. at 659.
`The court turned finally to the taking and Compact
`claims of the remaining plaintiffs. After examining the
`facts and what it viewed to be the pertinent law, the court
`held that Klamath Project operations in 2001 did not result
`in takings or violate the plaintiffs’ rights under the Com-
`pact because the waters retained in Upper Klamath Lake
`and the waters in the Klamath River were within the scope
`of federal reserved water rights for tribal fishing that were
`
`
`6 These irrigation contracts were made pursuant to
`the Warren Act of 1911, Pub. L. No. 61-406, 36 Stat. 925
`(codified at 43 U.S.C. §§ 523–25 (2012)). Baley, 134 Fed.
`Cl. at 630. They are between the United States on the one
`hand, and individual water users and irrigation districts
`on the other. Id. The contracts cover lands that were not
`part of the Klamath Project when it was originally devel-
`oped and contain language stating that water rights ac-
`quired under the contracts are inferior to prior rights
`reserved for the lands of the Klamath Project. Id. The
`Warren Act contracts also include language immunizing
`the United States from liability in the event of water short-
`ages, although this language takes two different forms. Id.
`at 631. The contracts with individuals and certain irriga-
`tion districts include language limiting the United States’
`liability for shortages caused by droughts or “other cause.”
`Id. at 631–32. Contracts with other irrigation districts do
`not include the “other cause” language. Id. at 631. The
`Court of Federal Claims held that the claims of plaintiffs
`whose Warren Act contracts included the “other cause” lan-
`guage were barred. Id. at 658–59.
`
`

`

`12
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`senior in priority to the plaintiffs’ water rights. Baley, 134
`Fed. Cl. at 659–80.
`Following the entry of judgment in favor of the govern-
`ment on October 24, 2017, the plaintiffs timely appealed.
`We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
`For the reasons set forth below, we now affirm the judg-
`ment of the Court of Federal Claims.
`BACKGROUND
`I. The Klamath Project
` The Reclamation Act of 1902, Pub. L. No. 57-161, 32
`Stat. 388 (codified, as amended, at 43 U.S.C. § 371 et seq.)
`(“the Reclamation Act” or “the Act”) “laid the groundwork
`for a vast and ambitious federal program to irrigate the
`arid lands of the western states.” Grant Cty. Black Sands
`Irrigation Dist. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 579 F.3d
`1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).7 Section 8 of the Reclamation
`Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply with
`state law regarding the appropriation of water for irriga-
`tion, to the extent such law is not inconsistent with federal
`law. Baley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 626 (citing 43 U.S.C. § 383).
`Relevant to this case, both Oregon and California fol-
`low the doctrine of prior appropriation of water rights. See
`Baley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 669 (citing Irwin v. Phillips, 5 Cal.
`140, 143 (1855) (California); Teel Irrigation Dist. v. Water
`Res. Dep’t of Or., 919 P.2d 1172, 1174 (Or. 1996) (Oregon)).
`Under the prior appropriation doctrine, “diversion and ap-
`plication of water to a beneficial use constitute an appro-
`priation, and entitle the appropriator to a continuing right
`to use the water, to the extent of the appropriation, but not
`
`
`7 Prior to passage of the Reclamation Act, at least
`part of the Klamath Basin was not arid land, but wetlands
`or marshes that were subsequently drained and converted
`to farmland pursuant to the Klamath Project.
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`13
`
`beyond that reasonably required and actually used. The
`appropriator first in time is prior in right over others upon
`the same stream.” Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. 558,
`565–66 (1936). “[T]he doctrine provides that rights to wa-
`ter for irrigation are perfected and enforced in order of sen-
`iority, starting with the first person to divert water from a
`natural stream and apply it to a beneficial use (or to begin
`such a project, if diligently completed).” Montana v. Wyo-
`ming, 563 U.S. 368, 375–76 (2011) (citing Hinderlider v. La
`Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 98
`(1938); Arizona v. California, 298 U.S. at 565–66; Wyo.
`Const., Art. 8, § 3). “Once such a water right is perfected,
`it is senior to any later appropriators’ rights and may be
`fulfilled entirely before those junior appropriators get any
`water at all.” Id. at 376.
`Subsequent to the passage of the Reclamation Act, on
`February 22, 1905, the Oregon legislature enacted a stat-
`ute (“1905 Oregon Act”) codifying a procedure to assist the
`United States in appropriating water for the irrigation
`works contemplated by the Act. Remand Decision, 635
`F.3d at 508 (citing Or. Gen. Laws, 1905, ch. 228, § 2 (re-
`pealed 1953) and Or. Gen. Laws, 1905, ch. 5, §§ 1–2); Baley,
`134 Fed. Cl. at 626. Under that procedure, once an officer
`of the United States filed in the office of the State Engineer
`a written notice that the United States intended to use cer-
`tain previously unappropriated waters, the waters were
`“deemed to have been appropriated by the United States,”
`provided certain deadlines for the filing of plans and con-
`struction were met. Baley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 626 (quoting Or.
`Gen. Laws, 1905, ch. 228, § 2). In authorizing the United
`States to appropriate water for the construction of the Kla-
`math Project irrigation works, “the Oregon legislature au-
`thorized the United States to appropriate state water
`rights pursuant to the 1905 [Oregon A]ct for the benefit of
`those persons who the Reclamation Act contemplated
`would put water to beneficial use.” Certification Decision,
`
`

`

`14
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`227 P.3d at 1159; see also Remand Decision, 635 F.3d at
`518 n.8.
`On May 17, 1905, the United States Reclamation Ser-
`vice, the predecessor to the Bureau of Reclamation, filed a
`notice with the Oregon State Engineer. The notice set forth
`plans for proposed works and proof of authorization for the
`Klamath Project, as required by the 1905 Oregon Act. Ba-
`ley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 626. The notice stated that “the United
`States intends to utilize . . . [a]ll of the waters of the Kla-
`math Basin in Oregon, constituting the entire drainage ba-
`sins of the Klamath River and Lost River, and all of the
`lakes, streams and rivers supplying water thereto or re-
`ceiving water therefrom” for purposes of “the operation of
`works for the utilization of water . . . under the provisions
`of the . . . Reclamation Act.” Id.8
`Under the Klamath Project, water is stored in Upper
`Klamath Lake by means of the Link River Dam. Water is
`diverted from Upper Klamath Lake and locations down-
`stream from the lake on the Klamath River and conveyed
`through canals and laterals to individual users in Oregon
`and California. Id. As part of this process, water is stored
`and its flow is controlled using a series of dams down-
`stream from the Link River Dam, which is at the south end
`of Upper Klamath Lake. The last of these dams on the Kla-
`math River is the Iron Gate Dam in California. The works
`that divert water were constructed by the United States
`between 1906 and 1966 and are currently owned by the
`
`
`8 Private landowners and irrigation companies had
`begun to divert water for irrigation purposes prior to the
`development of the Klamath Project; most of those inter-
`ests were integrated into the Klamath Project. Baley, 134
`Fed. Cl. at 626.
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`15
`
`United States. Id.9 A map of the Klamath River Basin in
`Oregon and California is provided in the Appendix.
`Individual plaintiff landowners (or their lessees) have
`applied water diverted from the Klamath River to irrigate
`crops. Baley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 626. In this manner, they
`have put Klamath Project water to beneficial use. As a re-
`sult, the water became appurtenant to their land. See Cer-
`tification Decision, 227 P.3d at 1163, 1169; Remand
`Decision, 635 F.3d at 518. The United States “holds the
`water right that it appropriated pursuant to the 1905 Ore-
`gon [A]ct for the use and benefit of the landowners.” Certi-
`fication Decision, 227 P.3d at 1163–64; see Remand
`Decision, 635 F.3d at 518.
`In 1975, Oregon began a general adjudication for the
`purpose of determining surface water rights in the Kla-
`math River Drainage Basin (“the Klamath Adjudication” or
`“the Adjudication”).10 Baley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 635. The Ad-
`judication was undertaken pursuant to the Oregon Water
`Rights Act of 1909, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 539.005–539.240. See
`id. The Adjudication covers pre-1909 state-based water
`
`9 The operation and maintenance of all the federally-
`owned works downstream of the headgates of Upper Kla-
`math Lake and the operation and maintenance of works
`that divert water directly from the Klamath River have
`been transferred by contract to the Klamath Irrigation Dis-
`trict and Tulelake Irrigation District, which distribute wa-
`ter to irrigators. Baley, 134 Fed. Cl. at 626–27. Similarly,
`other irrigation districts and individuals have constructed,
`and own, their own diversion and delivery facilities pursu-
`ant to contracts with the United States. Id.
`10 An adjudication is a process through which water
`rights can be quantified; i.e., quantities of water can be al-
`located to holders of rights in a water source. See generally
`A. Tarlock & J. Robison, Law of Water Rights and Re-
`sources §§ 1.1, 7.2 (2019).
`
`

`

`16
`
`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`rights not previously adjudicated, as well as federal re-
`served water rights. Id. Claims were filed beginning in
`1990. Administrative hearings were initiated in 2001, and
`on February 28, 2014, the adjudicator issued amended and
`corrected versions of previous orders of determination.
`Those orders are now before Oregon state courts for judicial
`confirmation. Id.; see Klamath Basin General Stream Ad-
`judication, Corrected Partial Order of Determination (Feb.
`28, 2014), https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/programs/Water
`Rights/Adjudications/KlamathAdj/KBA_ACFFOD_07017.
`PDF.
`
`II. Tribal Fishing Rights
`The Klamath Tribes, the Yurok Tribe, and the Hoopa
`Valley Tribe of Native Americans (collectively, the
`“Tribes”) each hold rights to take fish from water sources
`on their reservations. These rights were set aside for them
`when their reservations were created, as discussed in fur-
`ther detail below. The Tribes’ rights are non-consumptive,
`meaning that the Tribes are “not entitled to withdraw wa-
`ter from the stream for agricultural, industrial, or other
`consumptive uses.” United States v. Adair, 723 F.2d 1394,
`1411 (9th Cir. 1983). Instead, they hold “the right to pre-
`vent other appropriators from depleting the streams[’] wa-
`ters below a protected level in any area where the non-
`consumptive right applies.” Id.
`The Klamath Tribes, which include the Klamath and
`Moadoc Tribes and the Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians,
`constitute a federally-recognized tribe which has hunted,
`fished, and foraged in the Klamath Basin for over a thou-
`sand years. Id. at 1397; see Or. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife v.
`Klamath Indian Tribe, 473 U.S. 753, 755 (1985). The basis
`for the Klamath Tribes’ fishing rights is an 1864 treaty
`with the United States, in which the Klamath Tribes “re-
`linquished [their] aboriginal claim to some 12 million acres
`of land in return for a reservation of approximately 800,000
`acres” of land that abutted Upper Klamath Lake and
`
`

`

`BALEY v. UNITED STATES
`
`17
`
`included several of its tributaries. Adair, 723 F.2d at
`1397–98. In addition to other rights, the 1864 Treaty guar-
`anteed the Klamath Tribes “the exclusive right of taking
`fish in the streams and lakes, included in said reservation.”
`Treaty Between the United States of Am. & the Klamath
`& Moadoc Tribes & Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians, Art.
`I, Oct. 14, 1864, 16 Stat. 707 (“the Klamath Treaty” or “the
`1864 Treaty”). In Adair, the Ninth Circuit determined that
`“one of the ‘very purposes’ of establishing the Klamath
`[r]eservation was to secure to the Tribe a continuation of
`its traditional hunting and fishing lifestyle.” 723 F.2d at
`1408–09.11 The Klamath Tribes’ water rights “necessarily
`carry a priority date of time immemorial. The rights were
`not created by the 1864 Treaty, rather, the treaty con-
`firmed the continued existence of these rights.” Adair, 723
`F.2d at 1414 (collecting cases).
`Until 1887, the Klamath Tribes lived on their reserva-
`tion under the terms of the 1864 Treaty, holding the reser-
`vation land in communal ownership. Adair, 723 F.2d at
`1398. In 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act,
`24 Stat. 388. Under the General Allotment Act, approxi-
`mately 25% of the reservation passed from tribal to indi-
`vidual Indian ownership. Id. In 1954, Congress passed the
`Klamath Termination Act, 68 Stat. 718 (codified at 25
`U.S.C. §§ 564–564w (1976)) (“the Termination Act”),
`largely terminating the reservation. Id. at 1398, 1411–12.
`This led a large majority of tribal members to give up their
`interests in tribal property for cash. Id. at 1398. However,
`§ 564m(a) of the Termination Act provides that “[n]othing
`in sections 564–564w of this title shall abrogate any water
`
`
`11 The Adair court referred to the “Klamath Tribe,

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