IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT OF CLAIMS

___________________________________

                                                                              )

KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et .al.,     )

                                                                              )                                                    

Plaintiffs,                                       )

                                                                              )

v.                                                               )     No. 01-591 L

                                                                              )    

      )      Judge Diane Gilbert Sypolt

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     )

                                                                              )

Defendant.                                    )

__________________________________  )                

MOTION OF THE KLAMATH TRIBES AND THE YUROK TRIBE FOR LEAVE

TO FILE A MEMORANDUM AS AMICUS CURIAE

The Klamath Tribes and the Yurok Tribe  (“the Tribes”) move the Court for leave to file the accompanying memorandum as amicus curiae.  The Tribes are federally recognized Indian tribes with water rights in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California.  The Tribes seek to offer the Court information germane to the matters currently before the court on Plaintiffs’ Revised Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  This information has not been presented at all by Plaintiffs, nor will Defendants necessarily present and explain it adequately.^[1]  The Tribes do not offer argument on the penultimate questions before the Court, but seek to assure that such questions are resolved against a complete backdrop of facts regarding the case.

Specifically, the Tribes seek to present to the Court facts and analysis demonstrating:

(1) that Plaintiffs are incorrect in their fundamental statement that tribal water rights, senior in status to Plaintiffs’ water claims, played no role in Defendant’s decisions regarding water allocation in 2001.  (Memorandum Supporting Plaintiffs’ Revised Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 3).  Plaintiffs’ statement is misleading because it suggests Plaintiffs’ are the only ones with water rights germane to the 2001 water allocation decisions, and germane to the issues before the Court.

(2) that Plaintiffs are merely junior water right claimants whose claims are contingent not only on the weather and natural water supply, but on prior satisfaction of many senior claims to water in the Klamath Basin Adjudication (KBA).  Plaintiffs’ were instructed by the Court to analyze the impacts of “any adverse determination . . . by the Hearing Officer Panel” in the KBA.  By eliding the existence of these many senior claims, Plaintiffs’ discussion is incomplete and misleading.

The Tribes are well-positioned to provide the Court with reliable information on these important points.  They have first-hand knowledge of the role of their water rights in the water management decisions of 2001; and they have in-depth familiarity with the array of senior and junior claims in the KBA.