
Ruling: Federal contract controls non-federal Klamath water diversions
“The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can restrict a non-federal water diversion under its contract with the Klamath Drainage District, according to a federal appeals court. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Reclamation can control the district’s withdrawal of water from the Klamath River, even if it’s through the district’s own canal. “KDD had a contractual duty to adhere to Reclamation’s allocations and not divert water from the Klamath River, which KDD does not dispute it disregarded,” the ruling said. Under a 1946 contract, the district can divert water through the Klamath Irrigation Project, which was built by Reclamation along the Oregon-California border and is subject to Endangered Species Act restrictions for fish. … ” Read more from the Capital Press.
The rulings conclusion is similar to what federral courts have consistently found:
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Court of Federal Claims that appellants’ water rights were subordi-nate to the Tribes’ federal reserved water rights. We there-fore see no error in the court’s holding that the Bureau of Reclamation’s action in temporarily halting deliveries of Klamath Project water in 2001 did not constitute a taking of appellants’ property. Because the parties agree this rul-ing is dispositive of the case, we need not reach appellants’ remaining arguments on appeal noted above.
The Klamath’s federal irrigators say they want to work with tribes, enviros and others to resolve water issues. But their actions say otherwise. These irrigators keep filing lawsuit after lawsuit in their efforts to take water needed for a healthy River to irrigate their crops, including growing commercial crops on the Klamath Wildlife Refuges that provide little to no beneifit to birds and other wildlife.
I bet these litigenous irrigators will appeal this federal court decision in their ongoing quest to take the water our River needs to be healthy and use it on wildlife refuge lands for their own private benefit.
F
Felice Pace
Klamath, CA
https://www.paceonearth.com/
Gratefully living since 1976 in the Shasta, Karuk and Polikla (Yurok) homelands
Publishers Remarks:
The agricultural perspective in the Klamath Basin, a recent study by Oregon State University indicates that the Klamath Basin has an annual farm production value of $367.8 million. The agricultural sector in the Klamath Basin supports over 3,000 jobs in the region. These jobs span various areas, including farm labor, suppliers, fertilizer producers, and packers, rooted in economic necessity, legal rights, and historical practices.
As of January 2025, a massive habit restoration project has transformed 14,000 acres of Upper Klamath Basin, breaching a levee to reconnect the Barnes and Agency Units to refuge land adding 73,000 acre-feet of water.
Key Points from the Agricultural Perspective:
- Economic Reliance on Water:
Farmers and irrigators emphasize that water access is critical to sustaining the region’s agricultural economy, which includes potatoes, grain, alfalfa, and livestock. The $400 million in annual production and thousands of jobs depend on reliable water deliveries. Prolonged shortages or restrictions risk destabilizing rural communities and food supply chains. - Legal and Contractual Claims:
Irrigators argue that their water rights, established through longstanding agreements like the 1946 contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, grant them legal entitlements to divert water via the Klamath Irrigation Project. They contend that federal agencies are reinterpreting these agreements retroactively, undermining their investments and operational certainty. - Frustration with Regulatory Shifts:
Many farmers feel targeted by evolving Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and tribal water rights rulings, which they view as moving goalposts. The 2001 water shutoff, upheld by courts as non-compensable due to tribal reserved rights, remains a sore point—a symbol of how environmental priorities can override decades of agricultural reliance on federal water projects. - Defensive Litigation:
While criticized as “litigious,” irrigators frame lawsuits as necessary defenses of their livelihoods. They argue that courts have overlooked the socio-economic consequences of water cuts and that their contractual rights should shield them from sudden federal restrictions. - Wildlife Refuge Farming:
Crops on the Klamath Wildlife Refuges (e.g., wheat, potatoes) are grown under leases dating to the early 20th century. Farmers assert these practices are legal, historically sanctioned, and generate revenue for refuge management. Critics argue these crops (often water-intensive) conflict with wetland restoration, but irrigators highlight their role in sustaining local economies.
Broader Context and Counterarguments:
- Tribal and Environmental Priorities:
Tribes hold federally reserved water rights dating to time immemorial, recently affirmed by courts. Protecting salmon and suckerfish is both a cultural imperative and a legal obligation under the ESA. Environmental groups stress that river health affects biodiversity, tribal sovereignty, and regional ecosystems. - Legal Precedents:
Courts consistently rule that tribal rights and ESA mandates supersede agricultural contracts, as seen in the 2023 Ninth Circuit decision. This reinforces the federal trust responsibility to tribes and the principle that “first in time, first in right” applies to reserved rights. - Ecological Trade-offs:
Over-extraction exacerbates fish die-offs and habitat degradation, harming tribal fisheries and ecosystems. The 2024 dam removals on the Klamath River aim to restore flows, but tensions persist over balancing agriculture with long-term river health.
Paths Forward:
- Collaborative Solutions:
Some irrigators seek negotiated agreements, like the proposed Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement (KPFA), to share water and fund habitat restoration. Trust-building and federal funding for water-efficient infrastructure (e.g., groundwater storage, drip irrigation) could reduce conflict. - Adaptation Strategies:
Transitioning to less water-intensive crops, improving irrigation efficiency, and retiring marginal farmland could align agricultural practices with ecological limits. - Policy Reforms:
Clarifying water rights hierarchies and integrating tribal co-management of resources might foster equity. Federal compensation programs for water shortages could mitigate economic shocks.
The Klamath Basin’s water wars reflect a clash between immediate economic survival and long-term ecological sustainability. While irrigators legitimately fear for their livelihoods, legal and environmental realities increasingly favor tribal and river health priorities. A durable resolution will require compromise, innovation, and recognition that the basin’s future hinges on balancing human needs with the river’s right to flow.
- Garden Gab: Ready, Set, Sow!
- SV COMMUNITY ALERT: JH Ranch Expansion Raises Questions About Future of French Creek
- Old Skool Barber Shop: Crafting Legacy Through Resilience
- EHS Students Explore AI in Lions Club Speech Contests
- California Insurance Commissioner Rejects State Farm’s Emergency Rate Hike Request Amid Growing Insurance Crisis
Arrest Arrested bookings CDF&W chinook CHSRA coho Copco Dam Removal Dunsmuir Dunsmuir Elementary Easter Egg Hunt EHS Etna EtnaCa FERC Irongate Iron Gate Jail KCOC Klamath National Forest klamath river Klamath River Dams KNF KRRC McCloud Montague Mount Shasta Mt Shasta obituary Rodeo Salmon Scott River Scott Valley SCSO sheriff Siskiyou Siskiyou County Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Siskiyou District Attorney Office Siskiyou Golden Fair USDA KNF weedca YPD Yreka