|
|
|
Washington,
DC -- The U.S. Court of
Federal Claims announced a second significant victory for coastal
communities, salmon fishermen, and others who depend on a healthy
Klamath River for their livelihoods. The court rejected the
remaining breach of contract 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,
irrigation contract rights preclude the government from leaving water
in rivers to protect threatened salmon and other species. Noting
that the irrigators arguments "run headlong into the host of
rulings construing the [Endangered Species Act] . . . rulings largely
ignored by plaintiffs in their brief," the court dismissed
Klamath breach of contract claims. 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 refused to go along in no
uncertain terms. 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" of their property and for breach of
their irrigation contracts. The court rejected the irrigators'
property taking claims in August of 2005 and today's decision
rejecting their contract claims as well concludes the case in the
Court of Claims. 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 ruling should finally shut 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 throughout the whole basin to prevent these
types of crises in the future," said Glen Spain of PCFFA. "The Court of Federal Claims decision today
rejects an extreme view of property right and contract law 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 Klamath Water Users Association continues to
oppose a separate court ruling from last March that ordered the
federal government to maintain minimal flows in the Klamath River
during drought years to keep salmon alive. A decision is expected
soon from the 9th Circuit Court if Appeals. The federal claims court deals with questions of
monetary compensation from the federal government. The court's August 31, 2005, rejected the
irrigators' property takings claims in Klamath Irrigation District v.
United States and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations.
Contact:
Todd True, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Glen Spain, PCFFA, (541) 689-2000
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any
copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to
those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information
go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml